Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That the promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,

That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,

That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,

That the Petition relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary pf State was asked—

Right to Buy

Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans he has to revise right-to-buy legislation. [58604]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): On 28 July I announced proposals to improve value for money by replacing the current £50,000 maximum discount limit with nine regional limits. This change would result in a maximum cash limit ranging from £22,000 to £38,000. Tenants would continue to be eligible for up to 60 per cent. off the value of a house and 70 per cent. off the value of a flat. We are considering the responses to consultation and we shall announce our decisions as soon as possible.

Mr. Hughes: I welcome what the Minister said, but may I ask her to be much braver and to look at other matters, especially things that adversely affect leaseholders in the borough where she lives when she is in London, of which I am a Member of Parliament—Southwark? Will she consider the fact that many boroughs, including Southwark, wait to do capital works on estates until the protected period for new purchasers is over, when they do not have to make much of a contribution, so that the leaseholders suddenly have to make a whacking contribution to the cost of what is otherwise a council development?
Will the Minister also ensure that boroughs do not abuse the system by lumping on to leaseholders' bills the cost of large amounts of communal works that they have not done for decades, so that leaseholders suddenly find themselves paying for drains, road repairs, pavements and so on, which the Labour council should have done a hell of a long time before?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is referring to another aspect on which the Government are about to consult—the future of leaseholding. We expect in the next few weeks to issue a consultation document on leaseholding, and the hon. Gentleman will then have every opportunity to make representations.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: Do the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to help people who, having been encouraged to do so, buy properties—such as high-rise flats—and then discover that those properties are worthless?

Ms Armstrong: Earlier this year, we announced proposals to offer councils a financial incentive to buy back ex-council flats and houses from owners in difficulty. We aim to enable people to enter home ownership and to sustain that wherever possible. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is impossible to re-sell some properties because they are in a block on


which lenders are unwilling to consider granting mortgages. Councils have the right—which they were given by the previous Administration—to buy back such properties. Under our proposals, 25 per cent. of councils' costs would be covered.

Mr. Simon Burns: May I ask the Minister, lest she be tempted to do anything foolish, to think carefully before acting on proposals that will discourage home ownership and make it more difficult for tenants, especially in London and the south, to buy their own homes? Does she accept that the changes that are proposed will adversely affect approximately one in 10 families in England and one in four families in London, and that their discounts could be reduced by between £12,000 in London and £28,000 in the north-east? What possible justification is there for that type of attack on home ownership?

Ms Armstrong: I find it amusing that the hon. Gentleman cautions me about being foolish, but there you go, Madam Speaker. As I said in my previous answer, we are interested in sustainable home ownership, but we are also interested in ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money. Both those interests must be upheld in pursuing this policy. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated somewhat.

Mr. Burns: No. It is in the Minister's answer.

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have comments from sedentary positions, whether they are from Front Benchers or Back Benchers.

Ms Armstrong: It is not one in four families in London who will be affected but one in four of those who buy at the top end of the market and who are already council tenants. The present figure for council tenancy in London is far from one in four families, so the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. He clearly has not listened to what I have said—but that is not untypical.
We want to ensure that people are able to buy and sustain their own homes. At the same time, the Government respect the rights of taxpayers. The current policy costs taxpayers £400 million a year, and we want to ensure that that is not an ever-escalating bill. Our proposals will ensure that the vast majority of tenants continue to be eligible for a discount of up to 70 per cent. when buying their own homes. I believe that the taxpayers will find that very generous and very fair.

Lake District

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What proposals he has for environmental improvements in the Lake district. [58605]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): In order to enhance the environment and preserve the special character of the national park, the Government are working with local partners in developing a sustainable Lake district transport strategy. The Government will also provide the Association of National Park Authorities with an additional £2 million next year

to improve national parks generally. I can inform my hon. Friend that the Cumbria area has so far received almost £1 million for its rural bus initiatives.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is well aware that there are major problems with road and rail systems and the environment in Cumbria—particularly in the Lake district. Can we be assured that the important review that is now going on—which we all called for—will change the environment and have a real impact on Cumbria, which has gone without for many generations?

Mr. Meale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly in this area for many years since his election as a Member of Parliament. He knows that the Secretary of State and I are interested in trying to implement a real strategy for the Cumbria area in order to sort out some of its problems. The Deputy Prime Minister and I visited the area on 10 October this year, and I visited again on 17 October. We have already put together a grant in aid for the Cumbria county council of £150,000 for work on the development of multi-modal interchange facilities for the area. The core partnerships in the Lake district are about to start work on that. We hope to produce a report shortly, which we shall bring before the House.

Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Minister accept that his interest, and that of his colleagues, in the affairs of Cumbria is very welcome? However, it would be helpful if he could give some idea of the time scale for reaching some firm conclusions. Will he reassure my constituents that he will bear in mind the unique nature of the area and its dependence on tourism? In particular, does he now recognise that Kendal is not in West Cumbria? Will he confirm that he now has more of an understanding of the geography of Cumbria than of Cyprus?

Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know where Cumbria is, as I visited the area many times when I was much younger. The Government acknowledge that tourism is very important to Cumbria. Any changes made will benefit the area so that more people can visit and have a better time when they are there.

Local Government Finance

Mr. James Gray: What representations he has received from the Local Government Association regarding the local government finance settlement for 1999–2000. [58606]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Local Government Association and special interest groups within it have made a number of representations during discussions on next year's financial settlement for local government.

Mr. Gray: I am sure that those groups were grateful to the Minister for her valuable time. Will she now find time to meet a delegation from Wiltshire county council, which will explain to her the consequences of last year's settlement and the £100 million that her Government robbed from shire counties? Sparsity and rural poverty in Wiltshire make it one of the eight worst-funded counties


in England. That is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's constituency, which did conspicuously well in last year's settlement. Will the Minister explain why that was so?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Prime Minister represents a rural constituency, too. At the request of the LGA, I have met each of the groupings in the LGA, including the county councils network. The hon. Gentleman knows from his previous position, before he became a Member of Parliament, that the period for representations on individual budgets comes once the settlement has been announced. If Wiltshire wants to make representations, we will consider them. Following the actions on which I suspect the hon. Gentleman had some influence under the previous Government, we want to make the settlement much fairer than it was when we took office. The hon. Gentleman may be able to give us lessons on how to make sure that some councils get more money than others.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I accept that the Government's objective is to make the distribution far fairer, but alterations to area cost adjustments and standard spending assessments while the overall limit remains fixed will only please some people and upset others. Will my hon. Friend recognise the plight of councils such as Burnley, which have had their capping level frozen for a number of years? Those are a small group of authorities with a particular problem, which I hope the Government will try to correct.

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is honest when he admits that, when one redistributes money, some gain and some lose, and that one can never please everybody all the time. The position of the authorities that he represents has been put to me. I have met that grouping. My hon. Friend will also know that the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear, following the comprehensive spending review, that there will be no pre-announced capping limits this year.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the vindictive attack on some of the shire counties, is the Minister aware that there is a sub-group of local authorities that have both rural and urban characteristics—the town and country issues group? This is the third time that I have raised their plight with her in the House. Could it be third time lucky? If she has not already done so, will she agree to meet that group?

Ms Armstrong: The House is no doubt becoming aware that, if I saw every delegation before the settlement was announced, we would not have time to do the work necessary to deliver the settlement. We saw every delegation that asked to see us after the last settlement. Since then, I have met the LGA in partnership meetings and I have met the groupings recommended to us by the LGA. I have read and listened to the arguments of the town and country issues group on many occasions. I utterly reject any suggestion of vindictive treatment of shire counties last year. Far from it—we are delivering a much fairer settlement than the right hon. Lady's Government ever managed to do.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: The majority of local government appreciates the opportunity to meet my

hon. Friend and discuss matters before the SSA is settled. Will she ensure that the planned 15 per cent. increase in SSAs over the next three years provides an opportunity to distribute resources more fairly in local government, without any authority losing money? Will she assure the House and the country that she will live up to the promise to make the settlement fairer, so that authorities such as mine receive a fairer deal over the next three years?

Ms Armstrong: We have made it clear that we are seeking to move to a much fairer settlement. There are difficult issues on the table this year. I hope that, when the statement is made to the House in two or three weeks' time, the House will recognise that the Government have listened to the representations made to them and have taken steps towards establishing fairness. The Government are putting substantial new money into local government over the next three years as a result of the comprehensive spending review. That is a demonstration of our commitment to local government and our support for the public services that it delivers.

Jackie Ballard: I am sure that the Minister is aware that for many years local authorities, such as Somerset county council, have prioritised spending on education and social services at the expense both of other vital services and of non-statutory services. When can local government expect the Government to allow it the financial freedom to meet the needs and priorities of its local citizens?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Lady seems to be asking for every service to have priority, but the very nature of priority is that one prioritises. The Government have a manifesto commitment to prioritise health and education. We have made it clear through the comprehensive spending review that we will lift crude and universal capping, but we have also made it clear that we regard local government as an important part of the public sector and, therefore, of the overall public purse.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Is the Minister aware of the findings of the recent independent report produced for the county councils network that school transport costs more per pupil in rural areas than in urban areas?

Ms Armstrong: As I have said, I have received representations from the county councils network. I have met its representatives and we shall take their representations into account when reaching decisions on the settlement.

Mrs. Shephard: If the hon. Lady agrees with those findings, does she accept that the Government's decision—it was her Government's decision—to switch £100 million away from rural areas in this year's settlement was wrong? Does she also accept that boasting, as she has often done, of making a £50 million rural transport grant to the very areas that she has already robbed of £100 million, is not only naive but ludicrous?

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Lady does not seem to learn from one Question Time to another. I made it absolutely clear at the previous Question Time that the her figures are wrong. If one takes the amount of money


going into those rural areas along with that going to the shire districts and counties, one sees that there was nothing like a switch of £100 million. The right hon. Lady knows that, but she chooses to ignore it. That is politics, and I accept that. But the right hon. Lady also chooses to denigrate the £150 million that will go into rural bus services during the next three years. I do not wonder that she tries to do that, because the Conservative Government, of which she was a member, ensured that some rural areas simply had no buses. I hope that she is proud of her actions.

Incinerators

Mr. Colin Pickthall: What monitoring is undertaken by his Department on the siting of proposed (a) animal incinerators and (b) household waste incinerators. [58607]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Details on the siting of waste incinerators which are subject to planning permission are kept on the planning registers of local planning authorities. My Department keeps details of planning permissions granted and refused for incineration development both with energy recovery and without energy recovery, which can be used for monitoring. These records do not differentiate between animal and household waste incinerators.

Mr. Pickthall: The village of Burscough in my constituency has been under siege for some time now by developers who wish to site three animal incinerators there. Alongside that, neighbouring local authorities plan to increase the number of household waste incinerators. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we desperately need a strategic overview of the location of incinerators and, with that in mind, will he review the document issued by the Department in August 1997, which says that incinerators can be installed without planning permission where there is a building or land already designated for general industrial use? Would that not mean that, wherever there was an industrial site in Britain, incinerators could sprout up, without local people or local authorities being able to object to them?

Mr. Meacher: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. A planning application for the development of an incinerator—whether it is made in an industrial area or not—has to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations dictate otherwise, and in the light of planning guidance from the Department.
My hon. Friend is correct to say that we issued guidance in respect of over-30-months scheme incineration on 8 August last year, but in February this year we also issued for consultation the final draft of planning policy guidance note 10, entitled "Waste Disposal and Management". That advises on the location of waste management facilities and suggests that, although some industrial sites may be appropriate for site-specific reasons, there are a range of other options.

Travellers

Ms Claire Ward: What discussions he has had with local authorities about the effect of travellers on local communities. [58608]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had a number of discussions with local authorities, and with hon. Members, about gipsies and travellers. These have helped us to develop our policy on unauthorised camping, set out in "Managing Unauthorised Camping: A Good Practice Guide", which we published on 29 October, jointly with the Home Office. The good practice guidance stresses the need for local authorities and the police to develop joint protocols to deal more effectively with this issue. The good practice guidance, and the associated research report, are in the Library.

Ms Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware of the substantial costs that may be incurred by landowners and local businesses in obtaining court orders, and that local authorities have powers to obtain similar court orders more cheaply and quickly than those private applicants? Will he issue further guidance to local authorities to assist local businesses to obtain court orders so that we may be able to achieve a cheaper and more efficient way of removing some travellers, who are causing difficulties and expense for local communities and businesses?

Mr. Raynsford: I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed. I draw her attention to paragraph 4.5 of the good practice guidance, which specifically identifies the extent to which local authorities may assist private owners in action where there is unauthorised occupation as one of the issues that should be developed as part of local plans. I therefore urge her to talk to her local authority and the local police to develop an effective local protocol.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does the Minister recognise that we have a serious problem in Bedfordshire? One receives repeated representations from the farming community about the cost to farmers and other landowners of the removal of unauthorised travellers. Will he make the most urgent inquiries to find out whether the system be improved and made cheaper?

Mr. Raynsford: The evidence from the research undertaken by the university of Birmingham, on which we based the good practice guidance, was that there were wide variations in the performance of different local authorities and, indeed, different police authorities, in their response to the problem of unauthorised camping. The purpose of the good practice guidance, therefore, is to show what can be achieved, efficiently and cost-effectively, by the areas where there is the best co-operation. We want that to spread throughout the country, which is precisely why we issued the guidance, less than a month ago. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will commend it to his local authority and police.

Children's Parliament

Mrs. Janet Dean: Which parts of the country will be involved in the children's parliament. [58609]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The children's parliament on the environment is open to all schools in England with year 6 pupils, building on the interest that young people have in their environment and giving them the opportunity to develop an understanding of the democratic process. I am pleased to announced that more than 2,000 schools have so far registered to participate.

Mrs. Dean: Given that climate change is likely to be one of the topics discussed at the children's parliament, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he is satisfied with the outcome of the Buenos Aires conference?

Mr. Prescott: I was pleased with the Buenos Aires conference, which followed a successful Kyoto conference at which legal targets for gas emissions were agreed. The Buenos Aires conference maintained that momentum and agreed a two-year action programme to ensure that climate change policy can be put into practice, and it sends the signal that Governments are serious about the urgent need to tackle the threat of global warming.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: As I chair a steering group that hopes to establish a UK youth parliament in 2000, may I ask what is the budget for the children's parliament?

Mr. Prescott: It is estimated at approximately £300,000.

Freeholders

Mr. David Chaytor: What action his Department is proposing to take to curb the activities of freeholders who demand retrospective payment from leaseholders for alterations made to their homes. [58610]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I share my hon. Friend's concern about the large payments that are sometimes demanded from leaseholders who alter their homes. That is just one example of how leaseholders can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords. We hope to issue shortly a consultation paper on leasehold reform.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the activities of companies such as Ladybrook Securities, Simarc Property Management, Chancery Lane Estates, Leafenvoy Ltd, Grace Favour Ltd, Compton Developments and Urban Point Property Management? They all have a track record throughout Greater Manchester, including my constituency of Bury, North, of issuing extortionate demands to leaseholders for minor administrative procedures such as retrospective consent for planning permission or notification of change

of ownership. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the scandalous exploitation of leaseholders will be tackled head on in the forthcoming consultation document?

Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of the extensive concern, expressed by my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members from his region and other parts of the country, about the activities of some unscrupulous landlords who use loopholes in legislation to extract unreasonable sums from leaseholders. We are very concerned about it and are determined to tackle the abuse. I ask my hon. Friend to bear with us and wait for the forthcoming consultation paper to see precisely how we propose to end the abuse.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister accept that opportunities for leaseholders were considerably extended by the Housing Act 1996, introduced by the previous Government? Will he consider giving leaseholders an opportunity to apply directly to leasehold valuation tribunals in cases that commenced before that Act came into force, rather than simply allowing the courts to transfer such cases, as he is now considering?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman refers to the option of transferring cases from a court to a leasehold valuation tribunal. That will apply only in cases that are currently before the courts, and it would be wrong to deny the courts an opportunity to reach a view on such cases. However, we have acted in response to concerns expressed by leaseholders to make it possible, where the courts consider it appropriate, for the more informal£and sometimes better informed£leasehold valuation tribunals to deal with those complex and technical issues. That is the basis on which we have acted.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: The Minister referred to the consultation paper, which, in 1997, was promised for the following spring. It now appears that the consultation paper will be issued in spring 1999, which is more than a year late. May I urge the Minister to speed up the process on behalf of thousands of leaseholders throughout the country who suffer from malpractice by unscrupulous landlords or who have great difficulty in enfranchising themselves—something that they expected to be able to do under the previous Government's legislation?

Mr. Raynsford: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a history of frequent, ill-considered change in leasehold legislation. The previous Government's motives were often good, but the legislation was not properly thought through and, as a consequence, proved unworkable. That is why we are determined to get the package right this time and have given it careful and serious thought. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), we intend to publish a consultation paper shortly, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait until next spring to see it.

Green Belt

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about his policy on green-belt land. [58611]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government's policy was stated in our response to the 10th report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. We said:
the Government favours robust Green Belt boundaries and a continuing presumption against inappropriate development within them.

Sir Sydney Chapman: However many houses our nation will need between now and 2016, and however great the proportion that can be built on brown-field sites or recycled land and land earmarked for industrial development, given that some will have to be built on green-field sites, why cannot the Government give a continuing commitment to protect established green-belt land, especially as it represents less than an eighth of England's countryside? Why cannot the Minister give that simple commitment?

Mr. Caborn: I want to put on record the fact that, since the Government came to power in May 1997, the amount of green belt has considerably increased. Each case will be judged on its merits. We have a specific commitment to PPG2 on the green belt. As for household growth, we are ensuring that this becomes a regional issue, we have made a commitment that 60 per cent. of building will be on brown-field sites, and we have commissioned the inquiry under Lord Rogers of Riverside. We have done more to protect the green belt in the past 18 months than the previous Administration did in 18 years.

Air Pollution (Fuel Duties)

Mr. Eric Forth: If he will make a statement on the impact of the level of fuel duties on pollution. [58634]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): It is estimated that, over the period 1996–2002, the road fuel duty escalator—if continued at its current level of an increase of 6 per cent. per annum in real terms—will save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon in 2010, compared with the carbon emissions that would occur in 2010 under the alternative of no real duty increases over the relevant period.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. What estimate has he made of the impact that this enormous increase in duties will have on inflation, our business competitiveness and the automobile and related trades? Does he agree that, even if he achieves the figures that he has given, there is a distinct risk that the price in jobs, businesses and prosperity could be very high indeed?

Dr. Reid: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his Government introduced the policy of a real increase in fuel duty. As it happens, we agree with that policy, but he obviously does not, which is probably why he is no longer a Front-Bench spokesman. The Government have made their commitment clear. We are committed to environmental considerations to achieve an improvement in the environment, and to working with motor manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient engines with fewer emissions, so that motorists can not only save money, but contribute to an improvement in air quality

and in the general environment. I am sure that that commitment is supported by motorists and non-motorists alike. It was advanced by the previous Government and has been continued by this Government. It seems that on this, as on many other questions, the right hon. Gentleman is isolated.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, and the change in policy and momentum that the new Government have achieved. Will he examine more carefully the excellent example of the landfill tax? It is a hypothecated tax linked to landfill, and is doing much for the environment up and down the country. Could we have more hypothecated taxes that the public can see are linked to environmental improvement?

Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend will be well aware that, in a landmark decision, the Deputy Prime Minister, with the Chancellor's agreement, proposed that we should have hypothecated taxation or charging to enable local authorities to take action on congested roads. That is a major step forward for the environment and for the reduction of congestion. It allows greater transparency, and will enable people to see that the charges they pay are being put towards the real alternative of a reliable, safe and modern public transport system. Once again, the Government are contributing towards the improvement of the environment and the creation of choice for motorists and non-motorists alike.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given that the last Conservative Government imposed some £25 billion in extra fuel duties on motorists and that the new Government's policies would impose another £9 billion, is it not time—if we are to sell the principle of environmental taxation—to give something back to the taxpayer? That should be done not by making a small cut in vehicle excise duty, a proposal on which the Government are consulting, but by abolishing the duty—which is a tax on ownership rather than use of vehicles—for all but the most gas-guzzling cars.

Dr. Reid: The Government have given a great deal back to the taxpayer, in both environmental and transport terms. An example mentioned earlier is the £150 million for rural transport services, part of the £1.7 billion extra for transport. The hon. Gentleman may not know about the fuel duty rebates with which we are encouraging local authorities to make buses the centrepiece of local transport plans. We are taking a number of other measures. For instance, we are considering introducing a variable car tax. Under proposals announced by the Chancellor, there would be a lower car tax for smaller, more efficient vehicles.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to describe the numerous benefits that the Government are delivering to the taxpayer, in transport as in so many other areas.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Is the Minister aware that the Government's announced intention to engage in yet more consultation—this time on variable rates of vehicle excise duty—has been memorably described by Friends of the Earth as "Carry on Consulting"? When will he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stop walking and talking, as his


right hon. Friend keeps putting it, and start making some decisions—or are they waiting for the Treasury to tell them what to do again?

Dr. Reid: "Carry on Consulting" is slightly preferable to "Carry on Matron", which is what we see every time the right hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box. I am surprised that she, as a leading member of what we are now told were a caring, sharing, sensitive, listening Government, should be so opposed in principle to consulting people. Perhaps, if that Government had consulted slightly more, she would not now be sitting on the Opposition Benches.
As for vehicle excise duty, I think that there will be wide and popular support for the idea that those who purchase and use smaller, more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars should pay less tax than those who use larger, less fuel-efficient and more polluting cars. The principle has already been agreed, we are consulting on the mechanisms, and I think that the proposal will be supported throughout the country.

Mr. Ken Purchase: It is absolutely true that those who pollute most should pay most. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the longer-term prospects are for leaner-burn and more efficient, effective and economic combustion systems that will reduce all pollutants from engines, and will enable us over time to deal with the matter in a quite different way—not simply through price mechanisms?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend has put his point as succinctly as anyone could have.

A303

Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the A303. [58636]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): We are committed to carrying out the improvement of the A303 alongside Stonehenge and to a bypass of Winterbourne Stoke. The strategic role of the A303 and its remaining single carriageway sections will be considered as part of the corridor study from London to the south-west and south Wales. We will consult the regional planning conferences on this.

Mr. Heath: Can the Minister distinguish between schemes that are simply intended to make the road bigger and faster and to take people to Cornwall more quickly, and those that will save lives and relieve communities of heavy traffic? Will she look again at the section from Sparkford to Ilchester, and the slip road to the A359 which will relieve the village of Queen Camel?

Ms Jackson: I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's rejection of an imaginative scheme that will protect what is surely one of the most important historic sites in the world, and is a clear demonstration of the close co-operation between Departments across Government.
The corridor study that 1 mentioned is a major multi-modal study, including not only roads but railways. The objective is to examine the scope for reducing

congestion by considering better management of the road network and by shifting traffic from road to rail. Clearly, underpinning all those aims is one of the Government's primary considerations: to reduce accidents on roads.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Is the Minister aware that the delay of some five to seven years caused by the new study will give concern to my constituents, and to those using the A303 where it meets the A30 in my constituency? She will know that the A30 from Honiton to Exeter is being dualled and is a new road, which we welcome, but that the holiday build-up, particularly in July and August—which will be alleviated when the new road opens—will cause problems further back on that stretch of the A303 where it meets the A30. Is she content that, while another study is carried out, there will be mayhem for people trying to get into the west country in summer?

Ms Jackson: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Lady seems to have plucked out of the air the figure of seven years. We hope that, subject to the regional planning conference, the study will start next year. However, as many sections of the scheme returned with boring regularity between 1989 and 1996 under her Administration—part of that inevitable wish list that everyone knew would never be achieved—I find her remarks somewhat absurd.

Northern Line

Sir Sydney Chapman: When the new rolling stock will come fully into service on the London Underground Northern line; and what has caused the delays. [58637]

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] Perhaps that passes in the House for the cry of, "Encore."
London Underground expects that a full Northern line service will be provided with new trains by early autumn 1999. The delivery of new trains was delayed by more than a year due to production problems at ALSTOM's train-building plant. Deliveries started during 1997.
Before the trains can be brought into service, a number of difficulties are being resolved relating to the train and associated systems. For example, there have been problems with the computer software on trains and a delay in delivering the train simulator.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I am sure that, like mine, the hon. Lady's constituents will be deeply disappointed at the delays in bringing the new rolling stock on to the Northern line. As the private finance initiative negotiated contract contained a specific clause placing financial penalties on the manufacturers and suppliers of the rolling stock for late delivery, can she say what financial compensation will be paid either to the Government or to London Transport?

Ms Jackson: On the ground of commercial confidentiality, I regret that I cannot give the absolute figure, but there is little doubt that those companies are having to pay penalties for their failure to meet their side of the contract.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Minister take this opportunity to cast some light into the black hole of London Underground's finances? We know that the London Underground subsidy ceases in 2000, that the costs of the Jubilee line extension are up by £100 million this year, and that further losses are to be announced due to the delay in finishing the extension. How does she intend to make up those losses? Will it be by grant, or will they be added to London Underground's balance sheet?
The Secretary of State is already planning to dump the costs of his ridiculous public-private partnership on the new Greater London authority. How much extra is he proposing to add to the mayor's bill, due to his hopeless, incompetent management of London Underground?

Ms Jackson: I would have thought that even the hon. Gentleman had been in post long enough to be able to drop his usual approach, which is not only ill-mannered, but ill-informed. As he well knows, the Government have found an additional £365 million for London Underground, which means that, over the next two years, it will be able to meet the full commitment of £550 million a year, a maintenance bill that was left because of the previous Administration's failure, year on year, adequately to core-fund London Underground.
There were six increases in the proposed final budget for the Jubilee line extension between 1993, when the project was given the go ahead, and May 1997—every time under the hon. Gentleman's Administration. That is another graphic example of their lamentable failure to exercise proper stewardship of London's transport.

Strategic Roads Review

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What representations he has received on the publication of the strategic roads review. [58638]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): We have received a number of representations on various aspects of the review following its publication at the end of July.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister help me to explain, to those who tell me their objections and share some of my concerns, the apparent conflicts in the Government's policy on widening the M25? How does he square the proposal to widen the M25, substantially on its western side, with the Government's air quality strategy, bearing in mind the fact that, within two years, PM 10—particulate matter—levels, for example, will exceed levels stated in that strategy?
On the day on which the Department has published the results of the roads review and a leaflet on the M25 London orbital motorway—which states that the Government reject the option of building out of congestion on the M25, as implementing such proposals leads only to monster motorways—how are we to reconcile the proposal to widen the M25, which I think is

unnecessary, with our objectives on air quality and basic objections on building our way out of congestion? I should welcome the Minister's explanation of how that conflict can be reconciled.

Dr. Reid: I shall, as ever, do what I can to assist my hon. Friend. He will be aware that there were proposals—which the Government examined very closely—to widen large sections of the M25. The Government considered and withdrew proposals to widen between junctions 15 and 16 and between junctions 16 and 19. The Government decided to go ahead with specific proposals on the area between junctions 12 and 15, because we have to start by dealing with the situation as it is. Those three junctions are acutely congested, largely because of negligence by the previous Government.

Mr. Mackinlay: Nothing to do with terminal 5?

Dr. Reid: Unfortunately, we inherited the world that was left to us by the previous Government, which was not an ideal one. We decided to go ahead with widening proposals on that section, having rejected proposals on the other two sections.
As my hon. Friend knows, the picture on air quality is complicated. I merely tell him that continued congestion and the stop-go driving of many cars can do very little but contribute to air congestion. As for his useful sedentary question, terminal 5 was in no way taken into account in any of the deliberations. A decision—over which we have no control—will be taken autonomously and independently. It is a quasi-judicial process, which we would not have allowed to enter into our consideration.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Labour Members used to tell us that widening the M25 was £100 million of motorway madness? It is comforting now to hear him using the same type of words that we used when trying to explain the situation to Labour Members when they were in opposition. Now that the transport White Paper has been launched—providing a photo-opportunity on the tube for the Secretary of State, before he skulked back to his Jaguar—and the roads review has been celebrated, this morning, with the opening of the Newbury bypass, at dead of night and in secret, what are we to expect? What exactly is the Government's transport policy?
After various consultations over 18 months, we are still waiting for policy on buses, road-user charging, vehicle excise duties, car parking taxes, shipping, sustainable distribution, road safety, local transport plans, inland waterways, ports and airports. There has been not a single piece of legislation. When will the Secretary of State give us a real transport policy, rather than policy paralysis in his Department and ever more gridlock on the roads?

Dr. Reid: In 18 months, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department over which he presides produced more common sense, strategic reasoning, detailed plans and money to assist the transport systems than the previous Government managed to do in 18 years. The reason that he was able to list documents and action across a whole range of sectors—including sustainable distribution, local authority plans, congestion charging, buses, shipping and aviation policy—is that the present Government have tackled all those strategic issues


which lay in abeyance for so long under the previous Government. The people of Britain deserve a better transport system and we are going to give it to them.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Among the representations that the Minister has received, has he had any along the lines of that submitted by the Conservative council adjacent to my constituency, which welcomed the thrust of the strategic transport policy, the roads review and the cutbacks on road projects all over the country, except for the two in its immediate vicinity?

Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. Many councils congratulated us on our approach to an integrated transport policy—even some Conservative councils, not all of which had benefited from a new bypass. I assure my hon. Friend that there are a number of fair-minded Conservative councils. Of course, there are also councils that take the view that it is fine for everyone else to contribute to an integrated transport policy and a better environment, but that they should somehow be excluded from consideration. By and large, however, the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that are in the White Paper have been widely welcomed, not only by local authorities, but by the transport industry and, most important, by the people of this country who have waited too long for a decent, reliable, safe transport system.

Freight

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What incentives his Department is offering to transfer freight from road to rail; and if he will make a statement. [58639]

Mr. Andrew Miller: What steps he will take to encourage the increased use of the railways for freight transport. [58640]

Mr. Tom Levitt: What measures he is taking to encourage the transport of freight by rail. [58641]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Government want to see more freight move by rail. Last year, we doubled spending on freight grants from £15 million to £30 million and we further increased grants to £40 million. In contrast to the previous Administration, we are spending every penny of it. Next spring, we will have a shadow strategic rail authority to ensure that freight is taken fully into account in planning and developing the rail network.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that the transfer of freight from road

to rail in Wales would be far easier and much improved if there were a direct rail link between Holyhead and Cardiff? In that context, has he had the opportunity to look at the report by Friends of the Earth Cymru strongly advocating that?

Mr. Prescott: We are studying several reports on improving the freight rail system. A number of years ago, I considered the issue of Holyhead in respect of the trans-Pennine link with Europe and the land bridge concept. There are great opportunities and we are providing support for them at the moment.

Mr. Miller: My right hon. Friend knows that, in my constituency, there have been many complaints from businesses and industries that are trying to export, but are unable to exploit the rail freight network. Will he tell us in more detail the precise effects that his announcement will have on rail freight tonnage and the longer-term plans to develop the Government's excellent policy?

Mr. Prescott: We have taken a long-term view, particularly in regard to services to Europe. We renegotiated the channel tunnel link and we are now negotiating with the French authorities to see how we can improve the European services. We have asked Railtrack to look at all possible freight rail systems and the piggyback systems, and we are about to receive a report. We are pleased that a number of companies have increased the number of their wagons and engines, leading to a 12.5 per cent. growth in rail freight services in 1997–98—for the first time in many years.

Mr. Levitt: My right hon. Friend's reply will be welcomed, not least by three groups in my constituency: those communities that live next to main roads; the quarrying industry, which has already announced its intention to increase the amount of freight going by rail; and those campaigning for the restoration of the Buxton to Matlock rail link. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the strategic rail authority will help to take forward the campaign to increase the amount of freight on the rails?

Mr. Prescott: The strategic rail authority will consider a multi-modal approach to maximise the contribution of road and rail interchanges, including park-rail systems, by which cars can connect with main rail systems, or the rail interchange systems, which have increased considerably in the past 12 months. Those are ways in which we can improve the possibilities, alongside increasing grants and encouraging people to move more to rail. There are clear signs of that change, with 12.5 per cent. growth this year. To coin a phrase, we are getting there.

Territorial Army

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): With permission, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Will those Members who are not staying for the statement please leave quietly and quickly?

Mr. Robertson: I should like to make a statement about the future organisation and structure of the Territorial Army.
When I announced the conclusions of our strategic defence review on 8 July, I said that I was determined that the Territorial Army should become more relevant, more usable and better integrated with the rest of our forces. Since then, we have analysed how to put that vision into practice and engaged in detailed and widespread consultation with those most expert on the TA. The decisions that I have taken will produce a tauter, stronger Territorial Army, ready to play its part in facing tomorrow's crises. The changes are faithful to the design that I set out in my statement on 8 July.
We said that we would consult widely, and we have, especially with members of the TA, and the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations. We said that we would listen, and we have, to the many representations that have been made by hon. Members and others. The final structure reflects many substantive changes from the initial proposals circulated for consultation.
The theme of the strategic defence review was modern forces for the modern world. We no longer face a threat to our national survival, but crises and risks are still real and operationally demanding. We can expect little warning of trouble, and we are likely to have to go to the crisis, rather than have it come to us. That places a premium on armed forces that are flexible, useable and ready to react. However, we also need to retain a foundation on which we could generate larger capabilities should a strategic threat to NATO begin to re-emerge.
Tomorrow's Territorial Army will be central to both those needs, like the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force reserves, both of which will grow as a result of the defence review. The TA will no longer be a general reserve for general war in Europe, but a wholly integrated and vital part of a single capability—regular and reserve—for overseas deployment.
We can achieve that by giving the Territorial Army clearly defined operational roles in support of expeditionary forces and structuring it accordingly. There will be a clear shift of emphasis so that we can use the whole of the TA, not just part of it.
We shall make sure that the people who make up the units will be trained and available at the time that we need them. At present, most units are manned only to the extent needed to achieve low levels of readiness. That will change. More units will be held at higher readiness. The previous Government's decisions limited most TA units to only 90 per cent. of their establishments. As a consequence, the strength of the TA today stands at around 54,000. This Government will ensure that the TA

of the future is fully resourced for its roles. If needs be, the Government will be prepared to call up the TA in formed units in situations short of a direct threat to the United Kingdom, such as the Gulf war. We are proposing a radical shift away from the TA's traditional image as "weekend warriors", towards a new, more heavyweight role in the world after the cold war. I believe that the TA will welcome such change.
I have set out details in a document that I placed in the Library of the House more than an hour ago. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have written to hon. Members with an interest in the matter. The letters should have reached them before this statement. I hope that that notice has given hon. Members information that will help them in the following exchange.
The structure set out in our document will, first and foremost, enable tomorrow's TA to meet the operational demands that will be placed on it in future. Secondly, it will encompass a degree of insurance for the unexpected—should a strategic threat to NATO ever re-emerge. There are third and fourth elements to our proposals, too. The reforms will enable the TA to maintain a widespread presence throughout the nations, regions and counties of the United Kingdom. The armed forces must continue to be linked to the local and national communities that they serve, and the TA is vital in achieving that. Many hon. Members have stressed the important role of the Territorial Army as part of the visible presence of the armed forces across the country, and as a source of practical help to local communities. We share those views and took explicit decisions to reflect them fully in our plans.
Fourthly, in the forefront of our minds and of those of many hon. Members has been the need to secure and promote the cadets, and in particular to protect the units which share premises with the TA. I have made that clear on many occasions my strong support for the cadets. They are not a recruiting organisation but a self-standing and successful youth movement. Even so, whereas on average only 8 per cent. of today's Regular Army have been in the TA, 25 per cent. have experience of the cadets. Consequently, our aim has been to protect cadet units as far as possible from disruption during the transition to the new structure. We shall retain many TA centres for cadet use even when they are no longer to be used by Territorial Army units. I assure the House that we will not dispose of a centre until alternative facilities have been provided for the cadets—although some temporary dislocation is inevitable. I have set aside up to £12 million to meet those needs. In addition, I will be allocating £3 million extra to the cadets over the next four years.
In the summer, I told the House that, to meet the requirements that we envisaged placing on the Territorial Army, it would need to be about 40,000 strong. Following our detailed analysis and consultation, we have decided that a modest increase in that number is needed. The result will be a TA of 41,200. In other words, that is a reduction of 13,000 on today's strength. To put that into perspective, last year we lost almost that number through natural wastage alone. In total, only 87 of Britain's 455 TA centres will close outright. A further 27 will be retained for the cadets. Four in every five centres will therefore remain.


The decisions will fulfil both the country's operational need and the armed forces' role in the communities that they serve and in which they live. The outcome is not some number determined by an arbitrary exercise in cost reduction, but is securely rooted in a thorough analysis of policy and military need. It has the full backing of the head of the Army, the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roger Wheeler, and the whole Army Board. In that respect, as in its operational justification, it is no different from the rest of the strategic defence review.
I know that some would have wished us to go further and to maintain the reserves at much higher levels than we have proposed, just in case; but the nation simply does not need such large numbers and I cannot justify them either militarily, or as a Minister spending the money of taxpayers. To be frank, the self-esteem of the TA is not likely to survive if it has no real military purpose and is stuck frozen in some cold war glacier. However, we have not presumed that we can predict the future, or that it will be a continuation of the patterns of the recent past, so the TA will continue to be a basis for the regeneration of larger reserve forces, should the country ever need them.
We have also taken pains to implement change in a way that is sensitive to the pride and commitment of volunteers and to their regimental traditions and ethos. Tomorrow's Territorial Army will retain substantial, though reduced, numbers of infantry. In future, there will be 15 new infantry battalions and they will choose their own names. I am pleased to tell the House that, within those, all existing TA infantry cap-badge affiliations will be maintained at company level; not a single cap badge will be lost.
Traditions in the TA yeomanry will also be maintained through a nationwide representation of yeomanry squadrons. We shall also ensure that those squadrons will have a real job to do and strong links to the regular regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps. TA yeomanry squadrons will have access to the same equipment as their regular counterparts, including the Challenger 2 main battle tank, and to the major armoured training areas.
We have also reflected carefully on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence on the nuclear, biological and chemical role of the Territorial Army. The SDR included the creation of a regular unit—a joint Army-RAF organisation—to improve significantly our current capability in that important area. Under initial proposals, the TA yeomanry would have contributed a single squadron to that unit; but I have decided, in light of the Committee's observations, to retain two squadrons of TA yeomanry devoted to the support of regular forces in that role.
Tomorrow's TA structure will reflect a greater emphasis on specialists and units of the supporting arms and services than has previously been the case. Those will provide, as now, the full range of combat and combat services support for a military deployment: signallers, artillery, air defence, logistics and engineers and, of course, medical services. Both regular and reserve medical services were, I regret, neglected by the previous Government. We shall, therefore, seek to increase substantially—by more than 2,000 soldiers—the manpower available to the volunteer Army medical service.
The strategic defence review was also crucially about people. Volunteer service will be more demanding in future, but it will continue to provide rewarding

opportunities unparalleled in most other walks of life. There will also be opportunities to contribute to our new mission of defence diplomacy overseas.
The TA of the future will be an enterprise to which we wish to attract the best. A new recruitment campaign will ensure that that message is clearly conveyed.
Retention is just as important. In recent years, for example, up to a third of the TA's recruits have been leaving within a year of joining; that must change. Therefore, there will be a package of improvements to personnel management in the Territorial Army, in particular for individual members of the TA who volunteer for service in Bosnia and elsewhere abroad. We are overhauling antiquated arrangements for keeping track of individual TA members. A new reserves training and mobilisation centre will start training individuals for overseas deployments from April next year. We shall improve education and training opportunities and ensure, through the provision of personal development records, that the value of the individual's experience and training in service is recognised, which will be to the benefit of the individual and, we hope, of his or her civilian employer.
The Territorial Army has a first-class record of responding to the need for change. As an essential part of the Army throughout this century, it has always had to be flexible in size and in organisation. It expanded to meet both world wars. Since then, it has been disbanded, re-raised, reduced and expanded again to meet developments in warfare and a changing threat.
The changes that I am announcing today will mean that, for the first time in many years, tomorrow's Territorial Army will have a clear role and purpose for the future. Tomorrow's Territorial Army will be better manned, trained, supported and integrated, and will be able to meet the challenges of the world after the cold war. In short, it will be a Territorial Army fit for the future—both valuable and valued by the whole country. I commend the reforms to the House.

Mr. John Maples: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in letting me have a look at the proposals at 12 o'clock, which was helpful. I am grateful to him for that. I wish that I could say the same about their content. However, I am afraid that our worst expectations have just been confirmed.
The Territorial Army is to be cut from an establishment of 59,500 to 41,204—a cut of 31 per cent. The number of TA centres is to be cut from 455 to 341—a cut of 25 per cent. The Secretary of State thinks that he has made a brave decision, but it is one that his predecessors resisted. The Ministry of Defence has been trying to sell this downgrading of the TA to Ministers for years, and has finally found a Minister to whom it has succeeded in selling that proposal.
Such criticism does not just come from the Opposition—this is not a party political matter. The proposals have been criticised by Government Back Benchers, the Select Committee on Defence, the media, the Territorial Army, the TAVRAs, the Director of Infantry, the Secretary of State for Scotland, many retired officers and many regular soldiers, who are not allowed to speak but whose opinions are well known privately.
Those drastic cuts are being imposed at a time when we are beginning to realise that the end of the cold war has not brought a new era of peace and security. Our


armed forces are heavily committed in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. We nearly became involved in Kosovo, and may still become so. The Gulf has been looking very dangerous recently, and who can be sure that armed intervention will not be needed? What about the threats that no one has yet even thought about?
Let us look at the proposals in a little more detail. First, I wish to refer to the few things that we can whole heartedly support. We wholly endorse the reintroduction of the two Yeomanry squadrons as part of our nuclear, biological and chemical capability. The 2,000 extra posts in the Royal Army Medical Corps and the new 500-strong ambulance regiment are welcome. Speaking personally, I am delighted that the Stratford-upon-Avon TA centre and Signal Squadron have been reprieved. The commitment to better training and equipment is very welcome, but we shall watch to see that that happens. The strategic defence review was full of cuts today for better equipment tomorrow, and that must not happen to the TA.
I am delighted that the cadets are not to suffer the same fate as the TA. [Interruption.] The former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), is obviously so embarrassed by the statement that he feels compelled to leave the Chamber. [Interruption.] We missed the right hon. Gentleman, and we are delighted that he has returned to the Front Bench. I am delighted that the cadets will not suffer the same cuts as the TA, because their role in recruitment is vital.
The Secretary of State somehow pretends that it has fallen to him to reconfigure the TA after the end of the cold war, but this process has been going on for years. We agreed that the TA should be relevant to the post-cold war environment, and that is what we ensured. The TA has evolved significantly during the past few years and, frankly, it is insulting to the TA for the Secretary of State to pretend otherwise, or to describe those serving as "weekend warriors". Those weekend warriors are, as we speak, serving in Bosnia and Northern Ireland, and their lives are in danger on our behalf. The few good things that the Secretary of State proposes are largely building on what we started.
One of the effects of closing 114 TA centres will be that the TA will now be confined to our cities and large towns. Rural areas do not seem to be on the Government's map. There will be only one TA centre in Norfolk and only one in Lincolnshire, which is also a large county. There will be only one unit in central Wales between Wrexham in the north and Carmarthen in the south. In North Yorkshire, three centres are to close, leaving only one in Scarborough. What does that say to people in rural Britain? They are told that the TA is not for them and that, as in so many matters, the Government do not care about rural England. I use the word "England" advisedly because the highly critical letter of August from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Secretary of State for Defence has resulted in reprieves for several TA centres in Scotland.
Will the Secretary of State answer a few questions? Will he confirm that the TA infantry is to be cut from more than 16,000 to 7,100, that the TA yeomanry is to be cut from 2,500 to 1,300 and that the strength of the Royal Engineers will be cut from 5,900 to 2,700? Will he confirm that the Royal Artillery will be cut from 3,900 to

3,000, that the Royal Logistics Corps will be cut from 19 to 14 regiments and lose a third of its manpower and that the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers will lose one of their five battalions and a quarter of their men? Will he tell the House whether the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets has endorsed those cuts?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his new figure for the TA establishment of 41,200 includes 3,500 in university officer training corps and more than 6,000 specialists? The Select Committee on Defence recommended that those categories should be excluded from that establishment. If they are, is not its true strength little more than 31,000? Does the Secretary of State think that that is an adequate reserve?
The truth of the matter cannot be hidden by the glossy booklets and heavy spin that accompany the announcement. This is all about money. The SDR imposed cuts and efficiency targets on the Ministry of Defence which it cannot meet. It is scrabbling around for any pound that it can save, and the TA seems to be a vulnerable target. The cuts in themselves will not save much; the prospect of selling off the 114 so-called surplus properties must have been too tempting to resist.
I suspect that that is why the review has been conducted in such secrecy. The Secretary of State said that a consultation paper was circulated. It was not circulated to Members of Parliament whose constituencies might be affected and it was not circulated to the public—their opinion was not sought. Circulation was so confined that the document—uniquely for the Government and the Ministry—was not even leaked.
If there was a genuine consultation exercise, why did the Select Committee feel it necessary to write to the Secretary of State on 2 November to complain that the TA and the TAVRAs felt that they had been excluded from the process? Why was it necessary for the Commander-in-Chief of Land Command to circulate a letter threatening to court-martial any soldier who even discussed the matter with his Member of Parliament? Any consultation was very narrow, and when the Select Committee reopens its inquiry, it will have its suspicions confirmed.
The TA is our insurance policy against a national emergency. At a time when we have a small Regular Army of little more than 100,000, that reserve becomes even more important. The Government's decision on the TA is dictated by a short-term policy for short-term savings, and we could pay dearly for it in the longer run. The TA is a very British institution based on volunteers, service and patriotism. It has given and continues to give valuable service to our country, but today is a black day for the Territorial Army. The Secretary of State has made a mistake today for which he will pay politically. I only hope that our country will not also have to pay the next time that we find ourselves in a major crisis.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for beginning his minor rant with a commendation because we provided information on some of our proposals in advance. The areas that he singled out are among the most important components of the reform of the Territorial Army that I have presented to Parliament today.
First, let me deal with the issue of weekend warriors. I was not being derogatory about the Territorial Army. I was simply saying that, if the public perceive members


of the TA to be weekend warriors, involved in training for roles that are no longer relevant, that does not work in favour of the proud and professional people who give of their time and trouble. I believe that, by giving them a modernised role, giving them a vision for the future and giving them a usability that they have never had, we shall rebuild morale in the Territorial Army from the chaos that was left to us to clean up.
Obviously, although we gave the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) the document at 12 o'clock today, he has still not sufficiently understood the figures in it. I shall bear that in mind next time, and perhaps allocate more time for him to do so. He mentioned an establishment of 59,000 in the Territorial Army. That is at best a notional and technical figure. My predecessor, Michael Portillo, did not even fund the Territorial Army to the 56,000 level, let alone the 59,000 level. As I said in my statement, the actual strength of the Territorial Army is 54,000. Therefore, the reduction is 13,000 on the basis of its existing strength, and scaremongering with irrelevant figures does not help the debate. Four out of five TA centres throughout the country will remain open. I believe that that outcome takes into account the views that we heard on the Territorial Army and on the cadets.
What a strange lack of memory the hon. Member for Stratford—on-Avon has. I know that he was out of the House for a whole Parliament, and I know that he was once a Treasury Minister, but his selective memory does not help us to have a constructive debate about this great service. Under the previous Government, and since the end of the cold war, the three Ministers who were responsible for the Ministry of Defence reduced the Territorial Army by 20,000 over 10 years. The hon. Gentleman therefore has a bit of a cheek to criticise me for trimming 13,000 from the Territorial Army.
The hon. Gentleman criticised our treatment of rural England, but that criticism will not stand a moment's examination of the maps in the document. In operational and footprint terms our proposals tell an extremely good story. The hon. Gentleman's allegations that Scotland got a special reprieve are a cheap jibe, in light of the fact that I gave him figures about the regional distribution of the Territorial Army and the reductions. The new establishment in Scotland is 75 per cent. of the previous strength; the national average is 76 per cent. Therefore Scotland is exactly on the national average.
The London area—which will get three extra infantry companies—is the one that has done best out of the add-backs that we made to bring the figure up to 41,200. We have put back an infantry company in the north-west; one infantry company in the west midlands; and one infantry company, a company of the Royal Military Police and a field hospital in the north-east of England. There is, therefore, no partiality involved in the process.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon itemises several areas where there have been reductions. Of course there have been reductions—I said that we had trimmed the numbers while increasing the role, training and integrity of the Territorial Army. However, the hon. Gentleman did not mention the addition of 2,000 to the defence medical services—an initial cut for which his Government were responsible.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked whether the plan had the whole-hearted backing—

Mr. Keith Simpson: The cuts.

Mr. Robertson: The full package has been endorsed, not only by the Army Board, but by Brigadier Richard Holmes, Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets, who made that public statement only a few minutes ago, at the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the OTCs are included. Of course they are: they are part and parcel of the Territorial Army now, and into the future. The hon. Gentleman made a variety of nit-picking criticisms. However, as we are talking about authorities consulted on the review and the conclusions reached, he should bear in mind the words today of Field Marshal Lord Vincent of Coleshill, the last but one Chief of the Defence Staff and a great friend of the reserve forces of this land. He said:
the strategic environment has changed very significantly over the last decade. It is therefore essential that the Territorial Army is organised and allocated operational tasks in a manner that is clearly consistent with our new defence priorities. We simply have to ensure that the Territorial Army remains relevant and useable, or it will increasingly lack credibility in the years ahead. I believe that the Strategic Defence Review, followed by the extensive consultation process, has achieved these important objectives.
Senior and distinguished members of the British Army endorse what I have proposed today, and so too, I believe, will the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that that one exchange has taken 30 minutes. We must have brisk questions and answers from Back Benchers and the Secretary of State—I am sure that he will oblige—if I am to call everyone.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Today is obviously a bad day, and it is a black day for Chorley. I listened to the Secretary of State's criteria and, according to those criteria, Chorley TA centre should not be closed. It has nothing to do with some threat from Russia—far from it. I have only just read that our Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers 101 Battalion is to go to Wales. Why will it not remain in Chorley? I have been told that the cadet forces will remain untouched, but not in Chorley's case—the building that they use is marked down for closure.
I presume that something has gone wrong: either the Secretary of State has not been given the necessary information or Chorley has been treated differently. I do not believe that this is a political decision: it must be a mistake. I implore the Secretary of State to look seriously at what has happened. Will he meet a delegation from Chorley to discuss what will happen to the cadet force and why the battalion headquarters are to be moved from Chorley? When Cheshire—I have nothing against Cheshire—has nine TA centres and there is not one TA centre left in south Lancashire, there is something tragically wrong. Something has gone wrong with the formula because, according to the criteria, there is no way that Chorley's centre should close. I plead with the Secretary of State to meet us and to reverse his decision.

Mr. Robertson: I respect my hon. Friend's strong feelings. In any reform or redesign of the Territorial Army


there will clearly be losers as well as winners. I feel as pained as many others about the decisions that have been taken, but such decisions are in the greater interests of the Territorial Army.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will certainly meet my hon. Friend, not to change the decision—the overall package has been thought through very carefully—but to consider how best we can ensure that the area's cadets are accommodated properly and how the Territorial Army soldiers currently based in Chorley may find a proper career in the other units remaining in Greater Manchester.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I also thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see the documents and the statement in advance?
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's skill in presentation and the very welcome qualitative changes that he has announced, does he accept that today's statement will cause great dismay and disappointment to those whose units are to be disbanded? Does he accept also that, regardless of how it is described, the Territorial Army is to be reduced by a third or, at best—according to the Secretary of State's figures—by 25 per cent? Some 25 per cent. of TA drill halls will be sold to developers. With a reduction of that kind, is it not inevitable that the TA's ability to reinforce Regular Army infantry and yeomanry units will be reduced substantially?
Will there not be an erosion of the unique links between the community and the armed services that the TA provides? Will not these announcements reduce the ability of the Territorial Army to give support to the civilian community in time of emergency? Finally, how many of the senior TA officers who threatened to resign because of their anxiety about the inadequacy of the consultation process does the Secretary of State think will endorse his proposals without qualification?

Mr. Robertson: We are speaking about one British Army. The Territorial Army is a component of that, but the country must properly look at the whole of the British Army. General Sir Roger Wheeler, the Chief of the General Staff, is the head of the entire Army. In the strategic defence review we examined the global issue. The consequences of the defence review are also being announced today.
I am uncertain how many of the TA colonels will endorse or live with all the proposals, but at every stage they have been properly consulted and talked to. I anticipate that the British Army will recognise, as it always has in the past, that ultimately it is for Ministers of the Crown to make the decisions.
I made these decisions on the basis of a military judgment given to me by the Chief of the General Staff and the Army Board. At the press conference before we came to the House today, I made it clear, along with the Chief of the General Staff and the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets, that we were as one with respect to the proposed shape of the Territorial Army.
Morale in the Territorial Army will not be eroded, because the TA is being strengthened. Its role is being refreshed. It is being given greater utility and usability. In the future, it will have the right training and equipment to

be in the right place at the right time. The thousands of people across the country who give their time and effort diligently in the interests of the country will recognise that this is the way forward, as part of one Army.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I warmly welcome the decision to increase the Army medical service personnel by 2,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will have a considerable impact in correcting the problems that we inherited from the previous Government, who cut the armed forces medical services in all three services?
I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to move the headquarters of the TA armed forces medical services to my constituency, York, and to move the field training centre for the armed forces medical services close to York, to Strensall.

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his commendation. I know that he has had differences of opinion with me in the past, but we have made a conscious decision to locate the headquarters of the medical services in York. With the relocation of the Defence Vetting Agency to York, he can be proud of the job that he has done—the representations that he has made—on behalf of his constituents, who can be proud of him.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Secretary of State aware that, behind all the glitz of the new Labour modern speak, the cuts that he announced today are old-fashioned cuts in the Territorial Army across the land? Is he further aware that, in striking down the 10th Battalion Parachute Regiment, he is losing to the reserve forces a dedicated team of able, relevant and well-recruited volunteers whom I had the privilege of joining last weekend on exercise? Why axe them down, when the other component of the joint rapid deployment force–3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines—is to double the number of reserves that it recruits, while the paras are to be cut from 900 to 330? These are old-fashioned Labour cuts.

Mr. Robertson: I do not think that that is a fair representation, as the hon. Gentleman, who is usually fair, will recognise. A large number of defence jobs are located in his constituency. We have looked carefully at the role of the Parachute Regiment, in its regular configuration and in its Territorial Army configuration. I am satisfied that we will have an adequate number of people to perform the role that that regiment fulfils with great distinction in the Army.

Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the TA unit in my constituency at Greenhithe is one of those scheduled for closure. He will also be aware that that unit carries out an extremely important bomb disposal function for the area. Can he assure me and the members of my unit that that expertise and valuable function will not be lost, but will be moved to other units?

Mr. Robertson: I do not want to lose any expertise or function that is carried out by the TA where it is relevant to today's forces. My hon. Friend may well be disappointed at one aspect of this general review, but I


hope that he will recognise that, in the part of the world that he represents, the TA's general footprint will still be there and that the TA will still do a good job on behalf of the nation.

Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when proposals were made to me for reducing the size of the TA at the end of the cold war, when there was obvious justification for making some reductions, I judged the figure of 60,000 or thereabouts to be the minimum at which the TA could be sustained and its national presence and role maintained? The right hon. Gentleman will, therefore, understand why I believe that his announcement is profoundly unwise. It is based on a judgment of the world as he sees it at this moment. The particularly serious aspect of this is that he is proposing not only these reductions, but the sale of drill halls, so that when it is evident, as it may be in the future, that the cuts were unwise, it will be extremely difficult to reverse them.

Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman, who occupied my job, made a judgment at that time about the size of the TA in the circumstances then prevailing. I have had to do exactly the same, and times do change. We have only to look at the events of the past seven days to begin to realise just how quickly we have to react in times of crisis, and how, increasingly, we will have to do so in the future.
I must also say to the right hon. Gentleman, quite gently, that my predecessor, Michael Portillo, chose to fund only 90 per cent. of the figure that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about because he believed that a figure lower than 60,000 was justifiable in the then circumstances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the words of Field Marshal Lord Vincent, which I have read out, because he served the right hon. Gentleman with distinction.
Times change, threats change, and we must reconfigure, not just the regular but the reserve forces, to be ready for the future. That is what we have done, that is the military judgment, and I stand by that.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: As my right hon. Friend has paid great attention to the footprint argument, does he agree that East Sussex appears somewhat devoid of any footprint, save for one unit in Eastbourne? In particular, will he assure me that there will be some means by which civic occasions and other such functions can be serviced by some form of military presence, which is so well received by my constituents?

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that we can consider how civic occasions can be dealt with, because that is part of the footprint of the armed forces. My hon. Friend may well be disappointed at the closure of the Hastings centre, but we shall retain it as a centre for the cadet unit that uses it. Clearly, the cadets' future role will be important both in the life of Hastings and, I hope, in the wider community.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for making the documents available at noon today. It is a courtesy that could be observed by other Departments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman encourages that example.
Throughout the process, has not the argument been about the highest and the lowest bidder, and have we not reached some form of compromise? In the north of Scotland, we welcome the fact that two companies and eight platoons remain, although we would have much preferred to retain a battalion, but that is better than we had originally expected.
However, my constituents and I will be bitterly disappointed at the decision to remove RAF Squadrons 236 and 237 from Kinloss and Lossiemouth, as they are important engineering aspects of the TA and they have given huge and invaluable service to the community in civilian disasters, such as the floods that we had last year.
Those squadrons have been based at RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth at no expense whatever, and I believe that the decision should be reconsidered—perhaps there should be a combined squadron to serve the north of Scotland—because they are vital, given the geographic area that they are expected to cover.

Mr. Robertson: Far from hearing the apprehensions that have been expressed in some quarters about the TA in Scotland, I listened—very carefully, as the hon. Lady perhaps expected—to the voices that we heard in Scotland, including the strong and convincing voice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is a personal and professional friend.
I can understand that, in the hon. Lady's constituency case—she is talking about a broader constituency, I presume—there will be disappointment at the closing of the two squadrons. The TA centre in Elgin will remain, however, and her constituency has been the beneficiary of a new RAF squadron coming into RAF Lossiemouth from Germany. That will boost the local economy and will increase the footprint of the armed forces in that area. I believe that we have the right shape for the reserve forces throughout Scotland, and they will serve Scotland well.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the criticism from the Select Committee on Defence was considered, unlike the rant from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and one that we will explore further? Does he also agree that we welcome the restoration of the yeomanry nuclear, biological and chemical unit, which is fundamental to our response to the kind of terrorist incident that can take place? Will he reassure the House that his figure of 41,200 is real—unlike the notional figures of 59,000 and, going further back, 60,000, which were never funded by the previous Government—and the number that we intend to achieve?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good and valuable point. The figure that we have announced on the Territorial Army will be fully funded, which will be a change from figures that have been bandied about today and were bandied about by the previous Government. That will be well noted by the public.
I take my hon. Friend's point about the considered view of the Select Committee on Defence. I paid particular attention to what it said on TA numbers and on provisions for NBC protection, and I hope that the Committee—which will no doubt give this statement the scrutiny that it gives all other statements—will recognise that it made a valuable contribution to the consultation.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Secretary of State intends to close the unit in Cobham—detachments


of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment and of the cadet force—which is extremely bad news. First, is that closure taking place not for operational reasons, but simply because it is likely that that centre will be valuable on the property market? Secondly, had he noted the reply from the Prime Minister to me on 15 June about the activities of the civil contingencies committee, in which I anticipated the remarks of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the role that the TA could play in alleviating any of the problems arising from the millennium bug? Will he comment on that? What reply did he give to his colleague?

Mr. Robertson: I refute entirely the allegation that we have closed any of the centres on the basis of property value; indeed, if that had been the objective, an entirely different map would be before the House. We have looked carefully and in enormous detail at operational need in relation to the TA. That will have consequential results in respect of vacant property, which will feed into the defence budget and help to finance the global budget of the Department.
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the problems that might be experienced at the millennium. That is a serious issue in which the Government take a particular interest, but the TA is an integral part of the armed forces and it would, if required, be available with the rest of the armed forces in any civil emergency, either actual or potential.
None of the changes that we have announced today will affect our ability to respond to any such request. We have shown that we intend to maintain a widespread TA presence throughout the UK to maintain the operational coherence of all our forces, and if there is a problem we shall be able to deal with it.

Ms Rachel Squire: I warmly welcome the commitment that my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team have shown in giving the TA a future and a significant operational role. I welcome their willingness to listen and consult, which is in marked contrast to the previous Government. I further welcome the retention of the Army cadet force in Dunfermline. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of recruits to the regular armed forces come from the cadet force, not the TA? Does he also agree that a priority for this Government must be to make up the cut of one third that the previous Government made in the Regular Army by taking all possible action to encourage recruitment to the regular fores?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right, and I thank her for her comments. Army recruitment is at its best level now since 1993–17 per cent. up on last year. It is an indication from those who would join the Army that they see a future in it because of the strategic defence review. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the cadet centre in Dunfermline. She is right to say that, although the cadet force is a youth movement and is not designed for recruitment, it gives young people in many parts of the country a flavour of the forces that will tempt them into a satisfying and high-quality career later in life. My hon. Friend has helped throughout this exercise, and I thank her for the energy and effort that she has put into

it. By any standards, we have listened more to the outside world and the TA than any previous Government. I presume that, as a result, our proposals will get the support that they merit.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The proposals are open to all sorts of criticism, but in the case of my constituency they are ignorant. Page 75 of the so-called fact sheet places Shirley in Birmingham, whereas it is an important part of the borough of Solihull. I went to camp this summer with Army cadets from Shirley; I will see the air cadets on Thursday this week and the sea cadets on Friday. They will be devastated to know that the TA centre at Haslucks Green road will close completely. Will the Secretary of State write to me about where he proposes that those cadets should now parade?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is willing to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman, because we have absolutely guaranteed that accommodation will be made available to replace existing cadet centres. I hope that he will tell the cadets that he mentioned—I dare say that they value the contact that they have with him—that we shall spend an extra £3 million on the cadets over the next four years because we believe in their value both to the community and to the armed forces. Their relocation will be a matter of consultation, in which the hon. Gentleman is welcome to be involved. I guarantee that suitable premises will be found.

Mr. Barry Jones: I acknowledge the Secretary of State's courtesy in sending me a letter and documentation before his statement, and I support his strategy for the new century. May I thank him and his Department for the decision to keep open the Queensferry centre? The whole of Deeside will thank him for that, whether they be the voluntary services that use it or the soldiers themselves. May I also acknowledge my right hon. Friend's decision to keep the Royal Welch Fusiliers' 3rd Battalion of the Territorial Army at Wrexham? North Wales recruits strongly for the Royal Welch Fusiliers, and people throughout north Wales will thank the Secretary of State for listening.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that the decision that we took was right and proper in the circumstances. The TA is a good area for recruitment into the regular forces. That was one of the factors that we took into account in the reconfiguration of the TA. Overall, the package that we have put together satisfies the operational requirements of the Army, and is endorsed by the Chief of the General Staff and the Army Board. It will be recognised by the country as a suitable future for the whole of the TA.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I declare an interest as the squadron leader of the Warwickshire and Worcestershire Yeomanry, although I see from these proposals that I shall not hold that appointment for much longer. What measures will the Secretary of State take to ensure that, in future, there is a sufficient number of senior TA officers at the top of the chain of command who are capable of giving advice to Ministers, so that such a stitch-up will not take place in the future?

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that we shall be able to attract the right quality of officers and other personnel


into the Territorial Army, and that that will be easier to achieve at all levels now that the TA can look forward to a more usable and relevant role.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: It was a great relief to read the report, because I fully expected the centre in Durham to be closed. It was unthinkable that there would be no infantry presence in Durham in the near future. I thank the Secretary of State for that and for the fact that the Burma Band and Bugles of the Light Infantry will be retained. That is very important, because it would have been a terrible loss to Durham county if such a magnificent group of musicians had been disbanded.
I did not understand what my right hon. Friend meant when he referred to the names of the new battalions. He seemed to say that they could pick their own names. Will the battalion that will be based at the new headquarters in Durham be able to take the title of 7 Light Infantry, as it has been known through history?

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals. I hope that it will be noticed that the pain and the pleasure are evenly shared in the House, both geographically and politically. We have sought to achieve a sensible balance that is consistent with the operational objectives of the strategic defence review.
The new regiments are described by their geographic titles, but it will be within their power to make recommendations to us about what they want their names to be. That is a sensible way of going about it, rather than commanding from the centre what the new titles should be.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The United States Chief of the General Staff recently said that he needed all his reserves, which are larger than the Regular Army. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the cuts fall most heavily on those elements of the Territorial Army that cannot be found from civilian life, especially the infantry and yeomanry, for which there is no civilian equivalent and which would take the longest to rebuild? Will he also confirm that, although the 15 remaining infantry battalions may be allowed to recruit to their new establishments, those establishments are configured in such a way that they could not be deployed as a formed unit within any reasonable time scale? Will he confirm that the largest cut in the infantry falls on the paras, who are the most ready for war?

Mr. Robertson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to forget his main point, but he rescued himself at the last minute. The hon. Gentleman has a good track record on, and a great interest in, the reserve forces. I have responsibility for all the armed forces, and for ensuring that they are ready for day-to-day operations, in which our country is engaged much more than even the American forces. It is not possible to make easy comparisons between what the reserves do in the United States of America and what our reserve forces are expected to do.
Our reserves must be much more usable, at a much higher level of readiness and trained to a much higher level of skill than the reserve forces of the United States of America. As we have seen in Kosovo, Iraq and a number of other places, we have a larger proportion of our forces engaged in day-to-day operations than the

United States and practically every other country. That is why we want to make our Territorial Army much more usable and relevant.
We have considered the position of the Parachute Regiment with enormous care. The regiment has a very effective outside lobby, including a number of close friends of mine, and the decision was not made lightly. I have to balance the judgment of those outside, and those who happen to be involved in the interests of particular regiments, with the general advice that I receive and the decisions that I, as Secretary of State, must make on behalf of all our armed forces and of the country. I believe that my judgment, and the judgment of my military advisers, is right.

Mr. Martin Linton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and, in particular, on his wise decision to site the headquarters of the London Battalion in Battersea, along with four companies of the London Regiment and two of the Royal Green Jackets. May I urge him to draw attention to the record of the London Regiment, a TA regiment that is rooted in its community and reflects its ethnic composition, with 15 per cent. of members drawn from ethnic minorities in the headquarters company in Battersea and 20 per cent. in the company in Balham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)?

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words of welcome. I think that he and others will recognise that we have done the right thing in London and elsewhere. He is right to say that we have taken account of a variety of factors, including the ability to recruit from parts of the community with which we may not have had such success in the past.
I hope that it will be noticed that we have included three additional infantry companies in the London plan. One will be from the Royal Green Jackets, one from the London Scottish Regiment and one from the London Irish Regiment. I think that that will prove to be a popular decision.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be only one TA battalion in Wales, not two as at present? His document refers only to a Wales battalion. Will he also confirm that nine of the 31 TA centres in Wales are being closed? That does not reflect his claim that four out of five centres would remain in Wales; two out of three will remain—not the average relating to the United Kingdom as a whole. The recruiting record in Wales is outstanding, but I believe that the Secretary of State's proposals will seriously diminish it.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman, normally a very fair individual, is wrong in this instance. Of all the parts of the country, Wales is doing best in terms of the numbers retained. It currently has a strength of 2,982, and its proposed establishment is 2,547. Whereas the national average is 76 per cent. of the previous average, in Wales the figure is 85 per cent. Wales has done extremely well out of the restructuring.

Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Territorial Army had an important role to play in Northampton in rescuing people


when more than 2,000 homes were flooded at Easter? Its lifesaving work has not been publicly recognised. I assure my right hon. Friend that his decision to keep the TA centre in Northampton will be warmly welcomed by a town that understands the important role that the TA has to play in crises not just abroad, but at home.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I, too, pay tribute to the valuable social role undertaken by many units of the TA. I hope that, by restructuring and revitalising it and boosting its morale, I am giving those units collectively a pat on the back.
At the beginning of my statement, I made the critical point that the reduction in actual numbers is only fractionally more than the natural wastage in the TA in one year. Far from attacking the TA, as some irresponsible people have suggested, we are strengthening its role. Those who have praised and admired its work, as my hon. Friend has in the past, will have even more cause to do so in the future.

Mr. David Faber: I, too, welcome the personalised letter that all hon. Members have received from the Secretary of State. Does he not think that mine would have been of a little more use if it had been honest enough to acknowledge the fact that the Territorial Army centre in Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, was to close? My constituents will be confused about why no mention of the centre has been made in my letter, although, according to the document that has been produced, it is scheduled to close?
Does the Secretary of State not understand the devastating effect that that will have on a rural community such as west Wiltshire? The centre provides a focal point for the local community, for young people, for training young people in many of the arts, such as leadership, and for maintaining a serious career, which is good for the whole community, not just for the young people who try to join the TA.

Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's thanks for the fact that he received the letter. The detail about which he talks is in the document. The letter alerted him to the fact that it would be in the Vote Office, so the information was there.
We have tried to do our best. Few Departments and, indeed, few previous Governments have gone to the trouble of giving hon. Members information in advance of statements. I am sorry that that information, however the hon. Gentleman got it, is bad for him in terms of the specific constituency, but I assure him that we have ensured that the overall TA footprint is still there in Wiltshire, and that there are still relevant centres close by, which will give people who wish to volunteer the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Army in Lancaster will face the future positively and loyally, even in the face of decisions that have reduced the headquarters of a battalion to the status of a company, which is largely based in Barrow—the battalion being based in Preston? Does he understand that the Member of Parliament for Lancaster

and Wyre is more demoralised than it may be, and that I require a written explanation and rational justification for the changes that have taken place, which will not only say why those decisions have taken place, but give a real commitment to the Army in Lancaster? Can that justification be phrased rather better than the warm words and pats on the head that I have so far received in response to speeches in the House and many letters to the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is a decent and fair person and makes a point on behalf of his constituency. He may wish to express that here today, but it is impossible to restructure, to reorganise and to modernise the Territorial Army if there is not going to be a single casualty affecting some constituency. I assure him that there will still be opportunities in Lancashire and near Lancaster for people to volunteer and to serve their country through the Territorial Army.

Sir Robert Smith: In disbanding the company in Laurencekirk, will he confirm that, should volunteers from Laurencekirk wish to continue to make a commitment to the Territorial Army, they will be able to do so in neighbouring companies? Will he confirm what the Minister for the Armed Forces said at a meeting: if we find that there are practical consequences for the cadet force that were not foreseen in the statement, he will listen to representations?

Mr. Robertson: We are always willing to listen. The answer to the first question—can people who are being moved seek places in neighbouring countries?— [Interruption.] Neighbouring companies, not neighbouring countries. Norway is probably closer than England to Laurencekirk, but those people will be able to find a role in neighbouring companies. We shall be willing at every stage to consider constructive criticism of and suggestions about the plan, and indeed about the strategic defence review. The situation is not static, as the threat is not static and the unexpected can always happen. We have to be able to evolve our regular and reserve forces in a manner that serves the country best, which is why we shall keep it all constantly under review.

Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend's proposals will receive a warm welcome in the hillsides and vales of Wales. The news of the retention of two viable battalions there to play a crucial new role in fulfilling the modern role of our armed forces will be very welcome. Is he aware that, last Friday, in Edinburgh, General Wesley Clark, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, described the strategic defence review as a remarkable achievement that should be used as a model for all other NATO countries? Today's proposals are an integral part of that review.

Mr. Robertson: I do not know whether I should be more flattered by the fact that the reform will be welcomed in the vales and valleys of Wales or by General Wesley Clark's commendation of them last week at the North Atlantic Assembly. I am looking not for plaudits or commendations, but to do what is right for the United Kingdom and for the armed forces, who serve us all.

Sir Peter Emery: As the Secretary of State's hon. Friends have failed to do so, may I thank him


for coming to Edinburgh to the annual meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly, at considerable inconvenience for himself, having to fly from Ypres and meeting so many of our European friends, the delegates at that conference? However, may I also remind him that Mr. Solana, the NATO Secretary-General, in addressing the conference, not only reinforced his comments on the training of reservists having to be at the highest standards but said that ever more nations would have to rely on reservists if they were to be able to meet some of NATO's modern requirements and the surprise aspects of what NATO troops might have to do in the future? Today's statement seems to run entirely contrary to that advice.

Mr. Robertson: No, it does not—exactly to the contrary. Secretary-General Solana was absolutely correct in saying that we will have to rely more on our reservists, and we shall do so. We are therefore modernising and restructuring the Territorial Army, so that we can use its members, and more of them, more often in the future. I think that Secretary-General Solana—who has himself praised our defence review and commended it to other NATO countries—would recognise that the United Kingdom, more than most countries, has made our forces more relevant to the type of problems that NATO will face in the future.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm words at the beginning of his remarks, and for the help that he gave me at the reception in the old Parliament building, at Edinburgh, in meeting so many delegations that had come to my native land to hear the debate in the North Atlantic Assembly and to enjoy Scotland's hospitality and scenery.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State is surely aware that, from the Haldane principles of 1908 onwards, the Territorial Army has had a particular political structure because it has required political protection. Why has he therefore not taken any notice of the recommendation in paragraph 277 of the Defence Committee's report, which would at least have led to a Territorial Army of 50,000—a figure that the central staffs in the Ministry of Defence tried to slide past Sir Malcolm Rifkind when he was Defence Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister? The tactic was rejected then because those politicians had a proper understanding of the role of the Territorial Army in the United Kingdom. Why has the Secretary of State failed in his duty to protect the country and the Territorial Army?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman, who was an adviser to the previous Government, has clearly changed his mind—or his view, with so many others, was ignored. The previous Government reduced the Territorial Army by 20,000 in the past 10 years. I shall therefore take no preaching or lessons from those who say that I should not accept military advice but who themselves went well beyond the figure that they now claim is the absolute bedrock.

Rev. Martin Smyth: First, may I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for the opportunity of consulting on the issue? The Secretary of State will be mindful of my comment that premier divisions will not be going for the top place in the division if they keep

reserve forces at half strength. Some have kept their reserves at half strength because they do not have sufficient money—which I suspect is the reason for the current cuts in the armed forces. May I thank the Secretary of State for the fact that my own two units—in Sunnyside street and in Hydebank—have been retained? However, as the modern Army has to do a lot of policing, he will understand our regret that the Provost company in Kinnegar will be disbanded. Where will the sea cadet unit go when the centre in Newtonards is closed? Is it a matter of HMS Never Budge becoming HMS Scuttled?

Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's words. Northern Ireland has done very well as part of the review—for good reason, too, as its recruitment record has made a serious contribution to the Regular Army.
On housing for the sea cadet unit, I have made a pledge about ensuring that alternative accommodation is available for cadet forces. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, more than at liberty to come to the Ministry to discuss how best that can be done.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not ironic that the decimation of the Territorial Army has been announced so soon after Armistice day? Was not the Secretary of State's language redolent of that of a first world war general trying to justify colossal losses? Will the Secretary of State be remembered for what he has done to our volunteer forces today as a cut-price Douglas Haig of the 1990s?

Mr. Robertson: That is pathetic, and it is unworthy of a statement in the House. In 1987, the strength of the Territorial Army was 78,000; in 1996, it was 57,000. A Conservative Government were in power all that time.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Although I recognise that many hon. Members are disappointed with the Minister's statement, it would be unreasonable for me not to welcome his announcement that the Dunoon TA centre is to remain open, and to thank the Minister for his personal letter, in which he mentioned Dunoon. I am sure that the Secretary of State—who knows the town well—appreciates that it would have been very wrong to lose the last Argyll TA link with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

Mr. Robertson: The decision was all to do with operational reasons and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I went to school in that area and was a member of the Army cadets attached to the Territorial Army centre there. Just as there are winners and losers, the decision was taken on the basis of what is required to ensure that there is a reasonable footprint across the United Kingdom and that the Territorial Army continues to make a huge contribution in rural and urban areas alike.

Mr. Tony Baldry: In the forward to the document, the Secretary of State said—quite understandably, given the increase in peacekeeping by the armed forces—that there will be a shift in emphasis to logisticians, among other things. Against that background, will he explain to the House why the Royal Logistics Corps TA is being cut by a massive 30 per cent? That does not seem to be consistent with the objectives that he sets himself in the document's forward. Will he take this


opportunity also to make it quite clear that he does not in any way regard the TA as weekend warriors? Considering the huge numbers of TA soldiers who served in Bosnia, the Gulf and elsewhere, it would be very unfortunate if there were any scintilla of a suggestion that the House or the Secretary of State ever thought of the TA as weekend soldiers.

Mr. Robertson: I certainly do not have that view—I am trying to fight against it. However, I fear that repeated accusations may be one reason why we lose one third of the recruits to the Territorial Army in the first year. The whole thrust of the exercise that I am undertaking is to eliminate that image completely and to make sure that the Territorial Army is valued by and valuable to the country and to the regular forces. The hon. Gentleman is an honorary colonel of a Territorial Army unit and he has made several good suggestions which I have taken on board. I greatly value his advice. He asked a fair question about the cut in the Royal Logistics Corps. There have been reductions in numbers in some units because they support a larger deployment than is likely to occur. We have made operational decisions, and that happens to be one of them.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State made a joking reference to Norway in response to the question from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). Is he aware that the Norwegian army can field no fewer than 101,000 reserves to operational status within 72 hours and that Sweden has 450,000 army reserves, 48,000 of whom do up to 31 days' training a year? Is not the great weakness of his statement that it fatally fails to recognise the importance of numbers in reserves? It is surely a consequence of Treasury pressure. The Secretary of State spoke of footprints. The only footprints that I can discern are Treasury footprints—great big brown hob-nailed boots.

Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the Opposition could agree to one line on this issue. Those on the Front Bench say that I have been sold some sort of pass by the General Staff, and now the hon. Gentleman suggests that it is all due to the Treasury. The fact is that the Army needs the Territorial Army, which has to be revamped and modernised to make it useful.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Norway and Sweden. I repeat what I said in response to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier): we are not comparing like with like. Countries such as ours that are able to contribute through their regular forces on deployment have different requirements of their reserves than countries that are unable to make the same overseas deployment. That is well worth bearing in mind.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Along with many Members on both sides of the House, I am most concerned about the future of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. I was relieved to hear what the Secretary of State said. Will he give an assurance that their role will be further enhanced so that, when necessary, they will be

able to assist in emergencies such as the flooding incident at Llandudno and undertake other civil work, as they have in the past?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman repeats the point that we have kept the cap badge. That is important not just for the operational importance of the unit, but for morale in the unit and in Wales. The relevance of the armed forces and their role will be in accordance with the needs of the Army.

Mr. David Heath: Although there will be great sadness at the fact that the Somerset Light Infantry is to be extinguished after more than 300 years, there will also be relief at the fact that a Territorial Army presence will be maintained in the county. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the very small infantry units—the 15 complements proposed for Somerset and Cornwall—will remain viable in the long term?

Mr. Robertson: The purpose of the exercise is to make sure that we have viable units for the future.

Mr. Robert Walter: The Secretary of State said in his statement that we need a modern Territorial Army more fully integrated into our armed forces. The 4th Battalion of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment TA works effectively with the 1st Battalion of the regulars. Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why it will be more fully integrated if it is abolished and replaced by two companies of the South-West Battalion which will have no attachment to the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment.

Mr. Robertson: It is for the simple reason that the soldiers concerned will be at a higher level of readiness than they are trained for at present. They will be able to train on equipment to which they did not have access before; therefore, they will be more usable within the Territorial Army than the present configuration allows.

Mr. Martin Bell: I wish to speak up for an unfashionable arm of the service. The Secretary of State will know from his visits to British soldiers on active service overseas and elsewhere that none are more heavily committed than the Royal Engineers, yet the engineering reserves are being cut from nine regiments to five, which seems hard to justify. My plea is SOS—save our sappers.

Mr. Robertson: The fact is that the five regiments that we will retain will be much better able to serve at higher levels of readiness in places such as Bosnia, where our reserve forces make such a big contribution. At present, we believe that the number of Royal Engineers units is designed to support a larger force than is likely to be deployed, even on NATO operations. That is why it is the operational judgment of the Army and Ministers that they should be reduced. However, I believe that the five remaining units will be much more useful and better motivated as a result of the change.

Mr. Andy King: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Like him, I spent my teenage years in the Army cadet force. They may not have helped me, but they were particularly enjoyable years.


I believe that the cadet forces are very productive in channelling the positive energies of young people, and 1 benefited greatly from my experience. I particularly welcome the £tra that is to be put into the cadet force in the next four years. Will the Air Training Corps benefit from that money or is it exclusively for the Army cadet force?
I also spent a short time in the Territorial Army, and I am delighted that 89 Signal Squadron in Rugby is to remain. I was there just two weeks ago. Its members fit the bill very well. They are highly trained, highly competent and extremely capable individuals fulfilling a useful role in complementing our regular soldiers.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise. He is right to mention the contribution made by the cadets. As 25 per cent. of the armed forces have experience in the cadets, perhaps we should try to discover how many right hon. and hon. Members have the same experience. Such was the variety available in Dunoon grammar school at the time I attended it that I was able to serve in the Air Training Corps as well. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that it will also benefit from the extra resources that will be made available to the cadets, who are a very fine movement.
Recently, I went to see the cadets in Hamilton, and I was enormously impressed by what they do and by their spirit. I was also able to make a personal visit to a large detachment in Cheltenham at a school attended by a young cousin of mine. Again, the high morale of those involved was a joy to see.

Stakeholder Pension

Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require persons to contribute to a personal retirement pension scheme administered by an approved welfare supplier; to make provision with respect to contributions into and payments out of such schemes; to establish arrangements for the strategic direction and monitoring of pensions; and for connected purposes.
Our country is scarred by two nations in retirement. There are, thank goodness, a growing proportion of pensioners who have an adequate—sometimes more than adequate—income to see them through their retirement. At the same time, millions of pensioners are poor—some of them very poor. The Government have already introduced a number of measures to target resources on that group. Labour Members are looking forward to additional measures before the next election to help the poorest pensioners.
The Bill would lay the foundations to ensure that all pensioners shared in the growing long-term prosperity of our country by implementing a universal compulsory pension. All those in work would be required to become members of a stakeholder pension scheme on their 20th birthday. As each year went by, successive generations of 20-year-olds would come into the scheme. This is not a short-term measure. Pensions reform, above all else, is a long-term business and concern of the country and the House.
The aim of the Bill is to offer a guarantee. In today's terms, it would offer twice what a pensioner gets from the national insurance retirement pension—a guarantee of 30 per cent. of average earnings for a single pensioner when they came to retire. The link with average earnings is the crucial aspect in guaranteeing that future generations share in the growing long-term prosperity of the country.
That guarantee of 30 per cent. of average earnings for a single pensioner would be made up of two parts: today's national insurance retirement pension and a funded pension scheme—the stakeholder pension. The funded stakeholder part would be sold by approved welfare suppliers. Many groups and individuals could become approved welfare suppliers. They could be sponsored by trade unions, by employers, by associations of employers or by the companies that already provide pensions, such as the Legal and General and the Prudential. The crucial aspect of an approved welfare supplier is that the scheme must be owned by the members. The sponsor must set up the approved welfare supplier at arm's length from the parent organisation.
Above all, the Bill would allow for graduated contributions for the flat-rate guarantee. The scheme would have the finance to bring in the poor and those who were not part of the labour market at any given time. The groups for which the House will have most sympathy, I believe, are the parents—usually mothers, but sometimes fathers—who are outside the labour market looking after children under five and those who are doing the crucial job of looking after the long-term sick and disabled. Through that form of financing, the scheme could become universal, although it would also be compulsory.
I should like to sketch out to the House the difference that the Bill would make to our country. A Bill on compulsory stakeholder pensions would offer the Government the


single most important social security change available for the extension of social cohesion, something that is one of the major aims of Government policy. It would also open up a series of other welfare reforms. We are long past the time when any hon. Member thinks that there is a single, big bang reform that would implement the necessary changes. It would be possible to use a compulsory universal scheme as a basis for long-term care insurance, if the House and the Government wanted to move in that direction. Because risks would be pooled, there would also be the possibility of cheap life insurance, offering reformers the chance to move safely from current national insurance provision, such as widows' and what will shortly be widowers' benefits, to a form of cover associated with stakeholder pensions.
If we want better pensions, we need to put more money aside for them. We cannot have better pensions by paying less. Such a reform is a vital accompaniment to the pension guarantee that the Government have already offered—a means-tested income support guarantee that properly offers extra help to the poorest pensioners. Unless that is accompanied by a compulsory savings scheme, the guarantee will send out a clear message to many that they do not need to become members of pension schemes and do not need to bother to save, because, when they come to retire, taxpayers will bail them out.
Let me conclude by declaring how the Bill would change the welfare state fundamentally. It would offer the prospect of ending poverty, which is otherwise the outlook for millions of today's workers. It would offer a guaranteed income on which everybody could build by becoming a member of another pension scheme or having savings. People would know that those schemes would be paid in addition to the stakeholder pension, not withdrawn because of it. Through the delivery of approved welfare suppliers, it would offer a growth in civil society—those organisations that are greater than individuals or families, but less than Governments, states or nations. Above all, it would signal that, in this country, welfare reform is about more welfare, not less, but that more of that welfare will be provided outside the state, through mutual associations and companies, or organisations controlled by their members.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It was a privilege to serve with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on the Social Security Select Committee. He knows how much I admire his work. We had many conversations, and were party to many more, on pension reform, notably during our Committee's visit to Chile to study one of the world's most revolutionary pension reforms—imposed, interestingly enough, by a dictator. We can safely say that Frank ain't no Pinochet.
The right hon. Gentleman has risen to greater things in government. I still serve on the Committee, which continues to grapple with the intractable problems of pension reform. The right hon. Gentleman is in the happy position of being an ex-Minister, something that can provide opportunities for even more creative thinking, untrammelled by the dreary tramlines of office, laid down by the Treasury, which dictate that, whichever way one may want to turn, the points always ensure that one ends up in the station marked "means testing".
The right hon. Gentleman is a revolutionary. Like so many revolutionaries of the intellectual rather than the bruising type, he has, sadly, been devoured by his own revolution. Perhaps it is in the nature of great moralists and idealists that they can pen an idea or a concept, but cannot steer it through the muddied byways of government to fruition.
What is the great idea of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead? It is that the state can impose moral behaviour, Victorian virtues and self-reliance on all or most of us. Not surprisingly, I, too, am attracted by this antidote to libertarianism. Sadly, government is a pursuit of dreams frustrated by practicalities, particularly politics. As the Chancellor no doubt made clear to the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill simply will not deliver Labour, or anyone else who proposes it, any popularity.
Why should I care if the right hon. Member for Birkenhead or Labour does what is right at the expense of popularity? After all, we Conservatives did it often enough—eventually with fatal results. I care because any reform must be sustainable through a 40-year gestation period. The proposal is undeliverable in this sad world of spin doctors, opinion polls and elections because, with the decline in yields from gilts and the rise in annuity costs—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who knows about such things and works in the City, for his help with this part of my speech—a contribution rate of 12 per cent. of everybody's salary would be required to create an effective retirement pension of the type proposed. That means a massive rise in taxation.
We would still be left with the desperate problems of those who, through disability, unemployment, bad luck or lack of effort were incapable of sustaining such contributions. As the Minister of State, Department of Social Security said off the record, "Why should people on low incomes have help in funding their pensions when their incomes might be much higher later?" Not surprisingly, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead crashed into the No. 10 buffers with his ideas. The great game of No. 10 is not the creation of a new Jerusalem but the return, at the next election, of new Labour. A massive hike in taxation is not part of that scenario to No. 10.
All that is rather sad, because compulsion to save is probably the best way forward, but, I do not believe that it is politically deliverable. Although we respect the work that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has done, he is being disingenuous if he claims that, having battled through the arguments during 14 months in government and having had finally to resign, his ideas are acceptable to the Government. I do not believe that they are.
We cannot, of course, go on as we are. We know—or, it is hinted at—that, as a way forward, a shoddy compromise is being imposed by the Treasury enforcer who is ensconced in Richmond house, the Minister for the Cabinet Office. That shoddy compromise has been carefully crafted to leave out in the cold the non-voting poor and to leave to their own devices the influential better-off. Meanwhile, the state pension will go on declining, eventually into a miserly 17 per cent. of average earnings by 2020. Means-testing, to the disgust of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and, indeed, all of us, will increase. The poor, and even the not-so-poor on lower incomes, will have no incentive to save because any hard-won private pension contributions will simply deprive them of income support.


Perhaps we are trying to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps we should create a political consensus—if that is possible—to restore the earnings link to the state pension, funded through higher national insurance contributions, to provide a decent living for elderly people, and not make them rely increasingly on income support. Perhaps, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Social Security Secretary and present deputy leader of the Conservative party, was right: we must devise a long-term plan to privatise all pensions, building on the world-leading role of our private pensions industry.
I fear that such a radical solution must await the next Conservative Government; we shall not get it from this Government. Meanwhile, we should vote to flush out from those on the Government Benches and their supporters just how many hon. Members are prepared to follow the prophet down the path of pension righteousness and into the path of political peril.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 1.

Division No. 378]
[5.14 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Johnson Smith


Baker, Norman
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ballard, Jackie
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brake, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
McDonnell, John


Burstow, Paul
Morre, Michael


Cable, Dr Vincent
Öpik, Lembit


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chaytor, David
Sanders, Adrian


Chidgey, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cotter, Brian
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Davis, Rt Hon David
Tyler, Paul


(Haltemprice)
Webb, Steve


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Wicks, Malcolm


Foster, Don (Bath)
Willis, Phil


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Wise, Audrey


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. James Plaskitt and


Hinchliffe, David
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe




NOES


Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Michael Fabricant and



Mr. Howard Flight.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Field, Sir Peter Tapsell, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Steve Webb, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Clifford Forsythe and Mr. David Davis.

STAKEHOLDER PENSION

Mr. Frank Field accordingly presented a Bill to require persons to contribute to a personal retirement pension scheme administered by an approved welfare supplier; to make provision with respect to contributions into and payments out of such schemes; to establish arrangements for the strategic direction and monitoring of pensions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 261].

European Parliamentary Elections Bill

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that the final item of business for today before the Adjournment debate is:
Consideration of any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received".
In view of the fact that another place has just reaffirmed its earlier decision, have you had a request from the Leader of the House to make a brief business statement? If not, would you allow the right hon. Lady to make one?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have no information about any statement, but perhaps the Leader of the House would like to respond to that point of order.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I was not intending to make a statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it may be helpful to the House if, further to that point of order, I inform the House that it has already been agreed through the usual channels that the European Parliamentary Elections Bill will be taken as first business tomorrow. I also note the Opposition's warm welcome for a process whereby hereditary peers interfere with elections.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mrs. Anne McGuire.]

Scrutiny of European Business

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Scrutiny of European Business (HC 791) and takes note of the White Paper on the Scrutiny of European Business (Cm. 4095).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Resolution of the House of 24th October 1990 relating to European Community Legislation be rescinded and the following Resolution be made:
That,

(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council or in the European Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—

(a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Scrutiny Committee has not completed its scrutiny) or
(b) which is awaiting consideration by the House (that is, which has been recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) but in respect of which the House has not come to a Resolution).

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes—

(a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;
(b) political agreement;
(c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty of Rome (co-decision), agreement to a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament); and
(d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189c of the Treaty of Rome (co-operation), agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement—

(a) to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;
(b) to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending consideration.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting consideration by the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

(a) in every such case, to the European Scrutiny Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and
(b) in the case of a proposal awaiting consideration by the House, to the House at the first opportunity after giving agreement.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.

That, upon the entering into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Resolution on Scrutiny of European Business (No. 2) shall have effect with the following modifications:

In paragraph (1) the words "a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union" are replaced by the words "a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union"; and

in paragraph (2)(c) the words "a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament)" are replaced by the words "a common position, to an act in the form of a common position incorporating amendments proposed by the European Parliament, and to a joint text".

That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Standing Committees):

".—(1) There shall be three standing committees, called European Standing Committees, to which shall stand referred for consideration on motion, unless the House otherwise orders, such European Union documents as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) as may be recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.

(2) If a motion that specified European Union documents as aforesaid shall not stand referred to a European Standing Committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

(3) Each European Standing Committee shall consist of thirteen Members nominated for the duration of a Parliament by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

(a) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and
(b) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(4) The quorum of a European Standing Committee shall be three, excluding the chairman.

(5) Any Member, though not nominated to a European Standing Committee, may take part in the committee's proceedings and may move amendments to any motion made as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below, but such Member shall not make any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the committee may make a motion as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below; and the Government may appoint the precedence of notices of motion to be considered in each committee.

(6) The European Standing Committees, and the principal subject matter of the European Union documents to be referred to each, shall be as set out below; and in making recommendations for further consideration, the European Scrutiny Committee shall specify the committee to which in its opinion the documents ought to be referred; and subject to paragraph (2) of this order, the documents shall be referred to that committee accordingly

European Standing Committees
Principal subject matter



Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments:


A
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Environment, Transport and the Regions; Forestry Commission; (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)


B
HM Treasury (including HM Customs and Excise); Social Security; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; International Development; Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Department; together with any matters not otherwise allocated by this Order

C
Trade and Industry; Employment and Education; Culture, Media and Sport; Health

(7) The chairman may permit Ministers of the Crown to make statements and to answer questions thereon put by Members, in respect of each motion relative to a European Union document or documents referred to a European Standing Committee of which a Minister shall have given notice; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the first such statement:
Provided that the chairman may, if he sees fit, allow questions to be taken for a further period of not more than half an hour after the expiry of that period.

(8) Following the conclusion of the proceedings under the previous paragraph, the motion referred to therein may be made, to which amendments may be moved; and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously concluded, the chairman shall interrupt the consideration of such motion and amendments when the committee shall have sat for a period of two and a half hours, and shall then put forthwith successively:

(a) the question on any amendment already proposed from the chair; and
(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended).
The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.

(9) If any motion is made in the House in relation to any European Union document in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this order, the Speaker shall forthwith put uccessively—

(a) the question on any amendment selected by her which may be moved;
(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended);
and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

(10) With the modifications provided in this order, the following Standing Orders shall apply to European Standing Committees:

No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees);
No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and
No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees)."

That Standing Order No. 143 (Select Committee on European Legislation) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Scrutiny Committee):

(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the European Scrutiny Committee, to examine European Union documents and—

(a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which may be affected;
(b) to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees); and
(c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters.

The expression 'European Union document' in this order and in Standing Orders No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 119 (European Standing Committees) means—

(i) any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;
(ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;
(iii) any proposal to define a common position or for joint action under Title V of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;


(iv) any proposal for a joint position, joint action or a convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
(v) any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;
(vi) any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The committee shall consist of sixteen Members.

(3) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.

(4) The committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(5) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.

(6) The quorum of the committee shall be five.

(7) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.

(8) Every such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

(9) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before such sub-committees.

(10) The quorum of every such sub-committee shall be two.

(11) The committee shall have power to seek from any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its opinion on any European Union document, and to require a reply to such a request within such time as it may specify.

(12) The committee or any sub-committee appointed by it shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order or with any committee of the Lords on the European Communities, or any sub-committee of that committee, for the purposes of deliberating or examining witnesses.

(13) The committee shall have power to communicate to any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its evidence or any other document relating to matters of common interest.

(14) The committees specified for the purposes of this order are those appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) including any sub-committees of such committees, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Environmental Audit Committee.

(15) Unless the House otherwise orders, each member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a Member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

That the following consequential Amendments to Standing Orders be made:

In Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), line 3, leave out "Community documents" and insert "Union documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee))".

In Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in Standing Committees), line 18, leave out "Community" and insert "Union".

In Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration), line 20, at the end insert:

"(c) to communicate to the European Scrutiny Committee its evidence and any other document relating to matters of common interest; and

(d) to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence.";

In Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts),

line 17, after "departments)" insert "and to the European Scrutiny Committee",

line 21, at end add:
(4) The committee shall have power to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence.

In Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)

line 31, after "and" insert "to the European Scrutiny Committee,"

line 39, at end insert "or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence;"

line 46, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,"

In Standing Order No. I52A (Environmental Audit Committee), in line 30, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,".

That, with effect from the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) shall have effect with the following Amendments:

line 21, leave out "to define a common position or for joint action" and insert "for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position";

line 23, after "Council" insert "or to the European Council"; and

line 24, leave out "joint position, joint action" and insert "common position, framework decision, decision".

That Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Roger Casale, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Ms Jennifer Jones, Mrs. Rosemary McKenna, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Mrs. Beckett: Our place in Europe is of vital importance and relevance to all of us. Equally, decisions taken in Brussels have an impact on all of us. That is why proper parliamentary oversight of the range of issues negotiated in Brussels and elsewhere is essential to protect our interests and, equally important, to bring Europe closer to the people. However, if we are to achieve those objectives, Parliament needs to be promptly and fully informed both of proposed European Union legislation and policies and of the Government's approach to negotiations.
That is why the Government undertook, in their election manifesto, to overhaul the parliamentary process for scrutinising European legislation. Our aims were to strengthen the role of Parliament in relation to European Union business; to improve democratic oversight of new legislation under negotiation in the EU; and to increase transparency and parliamentary awareness of how European Union business is conducted. We have explored a number of options for change and, last week, published a White Paper setting out proposals for improving the scrutiny arrangements that govern how Parliament deals with European Union business.
Arrangements for the scrutiny of European business by Parliament have been in place since 1973. Under them, the Government make available to Parliament proposals for European legislation coming before the Council of Ministers, as well as other documents that may have important policy, legislative or financial implications. An accompanying explanatory memorandum describes the purpose of the document, and the Government's views on it.


In this House, the Select Committee on European Legislation—the Scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—considers each document, and may recommend that documents of particular importance are debated in Standing Committee, or by the whole House. The cornerstone of the scrutiny process is the parliamentary scrutiny reserve—n undertaking by the Government not to agree to a measure in the Council of Ministers until Parliament has completed its consideration of the proposal, unless there are special reasons for doing so. Similar arrangements operate in the other place.
The present scrutiny arrangements—which covered European Community business originally—are generally regarded as having worked well and, consequently, the Government propose today to build on that process and to make use of the experience of the arrangements that we have acquired. Although the arrangements for scrutiny have been updated periodically, they have not kept pace with developments in the EU. For example, the arrangements do not currently provide Parliament with the opportunity to comment on the full range of EU business. The common foreign and security policy, and justice and home affairs are not covered by existing procedures.
The Scrutiny Committee reported comprehensively on the scrutiny arrangements in July 1996, and made a wide range of recommendations. The Select Committee on Procedure endorsed those findings in March 1997. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons also considered the scrutiny arrangements as part of its wider remit to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised. In January this year, the Government submitted a memorandum to the Committee, outlining the key elements of a modern scrutiny system. The Modemisation Committee made its recommendations to improve scrutiny in June this year. The Government's White Paper sets out our proposals for meeting the recommendations.
Under the new arrangements, the Government would inform Parliament about proposals for European legislation and other important documents covering all three areas of EU activity. As before, the Scrutiny Committee would be able to examine the documents in detail on the basis of an explanatory memorandum, which would be supplemented by any further information that the Scrutiny Committee requested. The House would be able to debate any document it considered particularly important—normally in one of the European Standing Committees, although there would be flexibility for documents to be debated on the Floor of the House.
The new arrangements would allow more scope for specialist Select Committees of the House to be more closely involved in the scrutiny process—r example, where the measures under scrutiny fall within their area of expertise. The Scrutiny Committee would also be able to seek the views of departmental Select Committees on individual measures.
The scrutiny reserve would now cover not only European Community legislation but pre-legislative documents, and would be extended to cover business under the common foreign and security policy, and in the field of justice and home affairs. Obviously, the Government would continue to be able, in exceptional circumstances, to agree a measure before parliamentary scrutiny was completed.
Under the new arrangements, the Government would inform the Scrutiny Committee before a formal Council of Ministers of business expected to be on the agenda, and would provide additional evidence requested on particular items. Following the Council, the Government would provide Parliament with a written report on the outcome of the meeting. The Government will continue to make time available on the Floor of the House of Commons to debate European business before each European Council.
I turn now to the practical changes—the amendments needed to the Standing Orders and to the scrutiny reserve resolution to effect the new arrangements. The changes that we are proposing to both the scrutiny resolution and the Standing Orders follow in all but one respect the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee. The Committee recommended that the number of European Standing Committees be increased from two to five. The Committee recognised that there were practical problems involved in that, and suggested that the number of members of each Committee should be reduced from 13. After discussions through the usual channels, the best solution seems to be to keep the membership at 13, but to have only three Committees.
The proposed Standing Order change shows how the subject areas of EU documents would be divided between the three Committees. The new scrutiny resolution is set out in full, as are the two main Standing Orders affected by the implementation of the report. The new Standing Order No. 119, on European Standing Committees, will come into effect at the start of the next Session. Members will then be nominated to the three Standing Committees. The new Standing Order No. 143, on the European Scrutiny Committee, will take immediate effect.
There is also a motion on the Order Paper to appoint the current members of the Select Committee on European Legislation to the new Scrutiny Committee. There are a number of consequential amendments to other Standing Orders, mainly providing for communication between the European Scrutiny Committee and other Select Committees. The wording of the scrutiny resolution and of the Standing Orders will need to be altered slightly when the treaty of Amsterdam comes into force next year. As the changes are textual rather than substantial, the motions before the House tonight provide for those changes to be made at the appropriate time.
Before concluding, I wish to mention the effect of devolution on the arrangements. We presume that, in due course, the devolved bodies will wish to scrutinise EU business. We will be putting in place arrangements to facilitate that and to receive their comments.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend—who has been sympathetic to this view—will be aware that we desperately need a change of culture in the House if we are to have proper scrutiny of the European Parliament. Many hon. Members are quite terrified of Europe, have never been there and have never even used their one free trip per year. I see from the report that the Select Committee has suggested that the one trip a year paid for by the House is not enough. Could we have more access in the next Session so that we can have that culture change, and so that people are not terrified and can learn about how European institutions work?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend—with a number of others—takes seriously the issue of how the House can better scrutinise European Union business, and strongly argues that a freer interchange between the House and the European institutions will facilitate that process. He will know that we are bound by the travel budget, but we are considering whether there is room for greater flexibility to facilitate the kind of exchange that he and others have in mind.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the speed with which the relevant documents can be provided to the Committees is important in making them more effective. There is no point in having an elaborate Committee system if documents arrive five or 10 hours before they are to be debated. Frankly, there are some of us who not only know where Brussels is, but worked there when we were not politicians, and have been known to speak one or two odd foreign languages—no odder than our English, I have to say. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that we want to see what is being debated in time for the House to be fully informed? Otherwise, a lot of the proposals will not be useful.

Mrs. Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point, and she is quite correct. The Government are mindful of the difficulties and problems caused to the House—and, indeed, to the Government—by the late arrival of documents. I am also well aware that my hon. Friend is in a happy position; what is very often the reason for such a delay—the difficulty in obtaining translations—is less likely to worry her, as, if I recall correctly, she speaks about seven languages, and is fluent, discursive and, frequently, more than effective as a parliamentarian in all of them.
The Government are mindful of the problems that will be caused to the scrutiny process if documents are not readily available, and we are doing all we can. My hon. Friend will know that the European Scrutiny Committee was instrumental in making proposals, which have been taken up across Europe, on the timing and handling of documents. We hope that technological developments will make the transmission of information easier. She is entirely right to say that that is the key to the working of the arrangements.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I was paying attention to what the right hon. Lady said about the possibility that the devolved Parliaments might want to scrutinise various matters. Scrutiny of fisheries legislation, which is contentious and would rank highly enough to be discussed in both Parliaments, might result in two different Parliaments reaching different conclusions. My request is merely for information. Does the right hon. Lady have any idea how we would overcome the problem of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament coming to entirely different conclusions on the same matter? How would we proceed?

Mrs. Beckett: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern. We must explore the procedures and how they can interact between a fresh Assembly, or Parliament in Scotland, and this place. The hon. Gentleman knows where the responsibility for those matters lies.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There are already arguments that a Minister from a devolved Scottish

Parliament could be a lead Minister in negotiations and discussions. Does the right hon. Lady envisage the right of a Scottish Parliament not to implement a directive that this House considers fit to be implemented? That is the critical factor. How does the right hon. Lady envisage negotiations taking place to bring the Parliaments to a conclusion on those matters?

Mrs. Beckett: I have some respect for the hon. Lady. Perhaps I misunderstood her question. No doubt we shall explore that issue at length in future. I almost get the impression—I say this with respect—that she is thinking that the Scottish National party might want not only to sever the Union with England, but to leave the European Union. That seems to me to be the purport of her saying that the Scottish Parliament might refuse to implement directives.

Mr. Michael Jack: The right hon. Lady will be aware that a great deal of the initial work on Community business is undertaken by officials from the United Kingdom and other member states' Governments attending management committees and similar structures as they develop ideas at a formative stage. Will she consider publishing lists of the committees that are sitting and stating the type of work that they are doing? One of Parliament's problems is acquiring knowledge of business early enough for us to be able to influence it by debate in the House.

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I am not sure that publishing lists of committees that are meeting is the right way in which to proceed, because that may result in a burdensome amount of information without being very illuminating.
The Government and the European Scrutiny Committee, as it will be, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale, have drawn attention to the great importance of pre-legislative scrutiny and involvement at an early stage. Although that is an issue for the House, rather than the Government, and must be carefully considered on grounds of cost, I suspect that it was at the back of the minds of those who suggested a national Parliament office in Brussels. We shall all, over time, give more and more consideration to how it is possible for the House to be informed and to be able to have an input in the early days, when it is possible to have the greatest influence on the formation of proposals.
The Government believe that the new arrangements for the scrutiny of European Union matters which are before the House will allow Parliament to carry out a comprehensive, thorough and effective examination of the full range of business across all three pillars. The adoption of the new arrangements and the changes to Standing Orders will contribute to making the EU policy process and EU legislation more democratic, more transparent and better understood. That can only be a benefit to the House and the country.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Opposition support the general drift of the remarks of the Leader of the House. We were happy to agree to the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, and we accept


the reasons that the right hon. Lady gave for amending one of those recommendations and saying that there should be three Committees rather than five. We are glad that those Committees will each have 13 members.
The whole House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and those who serve on his Committee. That work is largely unsung, but not unhonoured because the Select Committee performs an extremely important task. Many hon. Members are barely aware of the Committee's existence, but those of us who are aware are exceptionally grateful to him and his colleagues for their hard work.
If one wants an indication of the hard work that is necessary, one has only to go to the Vote Office, as I did earlier during the Division, where I picked up a list of European Community documents for the week ending Saturday 14 November. As most hon. Members will know, a similar list is produced every week. The current list names 49 documents, ranging over issues as diverse and important as food law, landfill waste, air transport competition rules, sound financial management and renewable sources of energy. I shall not read the whole list. That reveals the sheer weight of paper that is coming in week by week, day by day.
It is crucial that Members of the House have the chance to have those documents examined on our behalf. I say "on our behalf' because we largely depend on those hon. Members who are appointed to the Select Committee and the European Standing Committees, and those who will serve on the three Committees that we shall, I hope, have after today's debate. It is vital that the Government honour their pledge and responsibility to make sure that important matters are not agreed to in Europe until the House has had an opportunity, via its Committees, to scrutinise the documents and, if necessary, to debate and vet them in detail.
We have to improve our relations with European institutions by scrutinising with greater care—that is no criticism of those who currently scrutinise these matters—the documents that emanate from the European Union. I do not say "from Europe" because, of course, we are in Europe. I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) does not live in Europe, but most of us think that we do.

Mr. Sheerman: Whether we disagree about being pro-Europe or anti-Europe—I am a passionate pro-European—the hon. Gentleman knows that I was referring to recommendation 39 in the report. It is strange that Britain has been a member of the European Union for a long time, but that hon. Members have one trip a year to a mainland European institution. I want the hon. Gentleman to join me in the campaign to make sure that we educate hon. Members so that they can go to Brussels and Strasbourg, and find their way around and have knowledge and perception of the culture. He will know, as do those of us who regularly go to those institutions, that we must do our homework, and if we do not travel to Europe to do so, we shall be unable to fulfil our function as Members of Parliament. Too many hon. Members do not even use their one trip a year. I get passionate about the matter because I want to educate my colleagues on both sides of the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that it would be

desirable if more of our colleagues had the opportunity to use that facility more often. We are in favour of greater flexibility in the use of the sums that are available. Of course, hon. Members are subject to no prohibition on visiting European institutions whenever they wish. I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a point about the trip that is paid for, and yes, we agree that it would be desirable that there should be greater flexibility, so that, for instance, those who adamantly do not wish to avail themselves of the facility may pass it on to others, and so that others who really want to make the trip may do so more often. I believe that all hon. Members should be able to use the facility, and I am personally in favour of extending it.
I understand why the Leader of the House is not with us any more—she courteously explained why she could not be here now—but I hope that, when the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office winds up the debate, he will spell out more clearly the Government's attitude and say whether the Government are prepared to seek further means to enable hon. Members to visit European institutions more often.
I should also be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about the national Parliament office. The Leader of the House mentioned it in passing, but she did not spell out the Government's response to the clear recommendation by the Modernisation Committee that there should be a national Parliament office, representing Westminster in Brussels. I should like to know precisely what the Government intend to do about that and what they envisage would be the participation in that national Parliament office of the devolved Parliament in Scotland and the devolved Assembly in Wales.
On that subject, it is my understanding—I hope that, if I am wrong, the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me—that the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly would have a specific role to play where responsibility was devolved, but that, where responsibility had not been devolved, it remained firmly and clearly with the House, so that Committees of the House would examine such subjects. I should be grateful for clarification.
To my mind, we need as much liaison and contact as possible if European institutions are to work and if enmity is not to be built up between the House and European institutions. Frequently, enmity is based on ignorance. The more people know and understand, the more they are able intelligently to debate.
Absurdities come from Brussels from time to time, and it is right that they should be denounced. It is important to ensure that the new Committees do not have sole and exclusive responsibility for debating European documents, and it is incumbent on Government to try to find more time in which those key issues may be debated on the Floor of the House. I know that hon. Members who are not voting members of Committees may attend the European Scrutiny Committees, but that is not quite the same as holding a debate in the Chamber.
I hope that, when the Leader of the House and her colleagues consider the next parliamentary Session, they will pay regard to the time that is allowed for European debates in the Chamber. It is important that such matters be debated. Moreover, given the changes that will occur within the European Union in the next few months, there will be greater and greater focus on those European


institutions, and greater interest in debating what goes on there and what emanates from them. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about that.
Although the matter is not strictly relevant to the subject that we are discussing at the moment, I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will bear in mind the fact that there is an institution called the European Parliament, with which it is important that we seek to build better relations. Some years ago, I was one of those who voted against the Bill, supported by the present Baroness Thatcher, that provided for the holding of direct elections to the European Parliament. I did so because I wanted there to be a longer period in which delegated members went to that Parliament from this place; I wanted to maintain the connection between the Parliaments. I believe that that was a reasonable reason for rebelling against the Bill.
There is less contact between the European Parliament and this place than I would wish. I must not stray too far in that direction because it is not strictly relevant to the Modernisation Committee's report. I merely add that the report reveals the constructive attitude that what comes from Europe is relevant to what we do here—not more important than what we do here, but of real importance to what we do here—an attitude that I believe should be universally adopted.
In so far as the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee will enable us the better to examine and scrutinise, I welcome them. In so far as the Government's response to the report is positive, I welcome that, but I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would touch on the points that I have raised in my short speech.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for publishing the White Paper and laying it before the House and congratulate him on doing so. I also thank the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), for the work that he and the Committee have done on the subject. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) kindly made some pleasant comments about the work of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which are very much appreciated.
In my enthusiasm for this important exchange, I cannot escape a sense of foreboding, inasmuch as I feel that I am attending a funeral and a birth at the same time. Tonight, we are ending the life of the Select Committee on European Legislation and starting the life of its successor, the European Scrutiny Committee. I remember hearing, in my early years, that sometimes it was better to celebrate a funeral and mourn a birth, on the basis that
the newly born had all its trials and tribulations
to come, and that
the end of a life ended the misery of living",
but I am sure that that is not the case in this regard. Nevertheless, the Committee that is about to pass on, which I have had the pleasure of chairing, has had its trials and tribulations over the years, and I very much look forward to the new life in the scrutiny process that will be engendered by the proposals.
If I may, I shall further burden the House with a short reflection on the work that has been done since the Committee's inception in 1973. As the hon. Member for

South Staffordshire said, the Committee, in its 25-year life, has had one of the busiest agendas of any Select Committee. Its subject matter is not known for its sexiness, but, for the statisticians among us, the European Legislation Committee has dealt with about 35,000 directives and documents—almost four directives a day for the past 25 years.
Sadly, much of that work has not received the recognition that I humbly suggest that it might, and should, have received. Only in the past few years—and, more important, in the past 18 months, under the new Labour Government—has the Committee's work been properly appreciated. I make no complaint about that except to say that, just maybe, the great ignorance that exists—inside and outside this place—on European issues can in small measure be attributed to the lack of political will and/or understanding of the importance of our European Union membership.
The White Paper presented to us today by the Leader of the House marks a watershed in parliamentary procedures. It recognises the importance of scrutiny in our democracy. Paragraph 5 on page 2 of the White Paper states:
the scrutiny arrangements have not kept pace with the need to ensure comprehensive Parliamentary oversight of developments in the EU and to make transparent and understandable the processes by which EU policy and legislation are made.
That is the issue that we are addressing today.
We have entered a new era of political and constitutional reform. In 18 months, the Government have passed legislation on the devolution of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London. We have held four referendums. This new era is about good, representative politics and the need for scrutiny within our parliamentary process. As we prepare to enter the next century, better, more effective scrutiny is very much part of that change.
I shall now comment briefly on specific issues in the report. These welcome proposals should be viewed not as the end of the modernisation process, but as the beginning of a modern model of scrutiny. At this juncture, I record my thanks and that of my Committee to the staff, past and present, who have served the European Legislation Committee over the years. Their task of examining, researching, briefing, investigating and reporting is a colossal responsibility which they have taken in their stride. The House owes them a great debt of gratitude, and I so record that this afternoon.
We are delighted that the paper includes most of the suggestions put to the Procedure Committee by the ELC. However, I shall offer one or two comments in order to, first, put down a marker for further consideration; and, secondly, reassure my colleagues on departmental Select Committees that the changes will serve and assist them in the special scrutiny of their Departments. It is not my Committee's intention to step into their areas of responsibility—on the contrary, most of what we do will complement and support their good work. There will be no turf wars.
The ELC did not deal with merit considerations, and the new European Scrutiny Committee will not do so in the future. Our interest in the second and third pillars will be to assess their legal and political significance and/or importance. In practice, the conduit for information will be both ways. That will improve the scrutiny of legislation and offer information support, if required, to our colleagues on other Select Committees.


Our proposal that the ESC should have the right to promote a "Floor debate" was recognised by the Government, but not accepted. The Government conceded that there was merit in our suggestion, but they have not agreed to it at this stage. That is regrettable, but I ask them to keep it in mind as we continue to learn from our experience.
The value of Standing Committee debate has been somewhat undervalued in the past. I am confident that the increase in the number of Standing Committees will add value to and encourage the specialised scrutiny of legislation and documents. That increase is welcome. The Modernisation Committee recommended an increase to five, but three is better than two. Although five would have been better still, I am reasonably comfortable with three. However, I hope that the Government will consider carefully the effectiveness of the extra Standing Committees and, if necessary, revisit the matter at a later stage.
I came to the House in June 1987 and, within a few weeks, I was a member of the European Legislation Committee. I have been its Chairman since 1992, and it has been a great honour to serve with many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members over the years. I have had the privilege of travelling all over Europe and have met Prime Ministers, Presidents and some royalty. I have many happy memories from my membership of the ELC that I will treasure and value. There is also some sadness. When the European Legislation Committee is wound up tonight, I will fondly remember former Members Jimmy Boyce and George Buckley, who served on the Committee and were good personal friends.
In my first 10 years as a member of the ELC, I found myself apologising for the then Conservative Government's xenophobic anti-Europe policy. My first announcement when I met any European colleagues at conferences or meetings was, "I am not a Tory." I am assured that several Conservatives do not share the views of the then Government. However, I am delighted to be a member of a Government who have grasped this moment in our history to embrace the collective advantages of being a major player and influence within the European Union.
The new Labour Government understand and accept readily and enthusiastically that our country's national interests are better protected and advanced by co-operation with our partners than by the narrow nationalism that has done us great harm in Europe and throughout the rest of the international community. This paper is part of that new politics. I welcome it and I applaud the Government for it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: At the risk of contributing to this consensual atmosphere, I wish to place on record my views and those of my colleagues regarding the important work of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I pay tribute to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), his colleagues and staff who, on behalf of the House, have done extremely important work for the whole nation, which has gone largely unnoticed within this place, let alone outside it.
We would not be discussing this issue if we were not conscious of the fact that there are—in the words of the hon. Member for Clydesdale—inadequacies in the present situation and that we can do better. I agree with

everything that he and his Committee and the former Procedure Committee, on which I served under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), have recommended in the past. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has based its proposals this evening on those recommendations. As a member of that Committee, I am delighted to add my voice to the recommendations of the Leader of the House and the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), that we should pass the measure without dissent.
I visited some German farmers two and a half or three years ago and I recall our conversation vividly. They said, "We in Germany implement every single tiny reference in every single directive. Every element of every directive from Brussels is implemented in full. Of course, in France, they do not take any notice and in Italy they do not know that there is such a directive." I was forced to add, "In Britain, my friends, we gold-plate directives." A constant preoccupation of hon. Members on both sides of the House is that, even when directives reach us, we discover that their implications are extremely complicated and convoluted. They are often added to—there is an accretion of different regulations when a directive reaches Whitehall. The House is still grappling with that problem.
The proposals before us improve that situation, but the hon. Member for Clydesdale is absolutely right: this is not the end but the beginning of an improved process. We cannot be satisfied that scrutiny is as effective as it should be, even when the new proposals are in place. I hope that, in trying to improve them, we shall not think that that is the end of the matter. We shall move forward on a transitional and experimental basis.
The terms of reference and the name of the Committee are of little importance, except in demonstrating to the House and to the world outside that we shall take the issue a great deal more seriously than we did in the recent past.
The question is not what we should scrutinise, or even how we should scrutinise it, but when we should do so. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) both spoke of the need for the House to be aware of proposals as they are developing in the European institutions, rather than when they have become a firm proposition. The proposal that a Minister who may be about to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers should come before the Committee, and explain the range of options that may be available to him and his opposite numbers in the Council, is extremely important.
The section on the Council of Ministers in the document before us represents a significant step forward. If, for example, next week the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, after meeting his colleagues at the Agriculture Council to discuss the important issue of the beef export ban, could come back and explain the process whereby a decision was reached and what the decision was, that would contribute to the transparency and open government to which the Government are committed.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Clydesdale that it would have been preferable if there were five Standing Committees with a smaller membership—perhaps nine. That would be only a slight increase on the proposed three Standing Committees, each with a membership of 13.


That would be a sensible way to move forward, as there will still be a considerable work load on the three Committees.
There would have been another advantage, which has not yet been mentioned in the debate: there could have been some cross-reference between membership of the departmental Select Committees and the more specialist Standing Committees. That is difficult to achieve at present and will continue to be difficult with only three Standing Committees, because the necessary range of expertise and the work load will be so great. Some cross-reference and sharing of expertise would be helpful.
My final point relates to the way in which we deal with European business in the Chamber. I have not served on the Standing Committees but, in many cases, after careful analysis of the peculiar way in which a directive has developed and how it will apply in this country, and possibly after a Minister had retreated from his initial position on the proposal, the way in which the Committee reported back to the House left much to be desired. Many hon. Members have felt frustrated that the exercise of scrutiny did not result in effective decision making by all Members in the House. The proposals may offer the possibility of genuine improvement in that process.
We must have enough time to deal properly with European matters in the Chamber. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), is not a member of the Modernisation Committee, but I hope that he will take back to the Leader of the House the message that the effective involvement of the whole House in the scrutiny process will mean that more business must be transferred from the Floor of the House to some other procedure in a different part of the House.
All the proposals are tentative and experimental, and their effect will be cumulative. We would not expect a dramatic change—that is not how we change our procedure in this place. I know that, having battled on the issue for many years, the right hon. Member for East Devon will agree.
The proposals are an important step forward, but I have one remaining concern. Paragraph 47 states:
We recommend that Departments individually and the Government collectively provide timely and accurate information to Parliament on European Union matters. If mistakes occur, corrective action must be taken to meet the needs of Parliament. For this purpose, a designation of responsibility as outlined above is essential. The European Legislation Committee"—
which, I think, is a reference to the European Scrutiny Committee—
should continue to monitor the situation.
As the experiment moves forward, it is important that we monitor it closely. There is a long way to go, and this is a step in the right direction. It is a strength of the House that we never stop permanently—we are always prepared to move on. I believe that we shall have to return to the matter in a few years, to ensure that the process continues to achieve more effective scrutiny of important legislation that affects all our fellow citizens.

Ms Jenny Jones: I shall not depart from the consensus that is apparent in the debate. I am one of the newest members of the Select

Committee on European Legislation. I was keen to be on the Committee and was extremely pleased to be appointed to it, but it was interesting to hear the reaction of some of my colleagues. They wondered why I wanted to be a member of that Select Committee and suggested that it was not the sexiest one. I found that an astonishing remark, as I had not realised that there was a beauty contest among Select Committees.
In the short time that I have served on the Committee, two features have struck me. First, its work is important, because the European Union impinges on all our lives. I have been impressed by the expertise and experience of the members who have served on the Committee much longer than I have. It is pleasing to know that that well of experience has been recognised. There is a good base for the Committee's enhanced role.
Secondly, I was struck by the dedication and hard work of the staff. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that he was astonished at the amount of work that we get through. I was pleased that the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), paid tribute to the work of the staff.
I do not disagree with anything that any of the previous speakers have said, but I shall add two comments. First, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rightly said, whatever we may feel about the United Kingdom's membership of the EU, it touches on all our lives. As an institution, it has changed rapidly and developed significantly since scrutiny in this Parliament began. The way in which we scrutinise European business must keep pace with the rapid developments there.
Another reason why we must improve scrutiny arises from the democratic deficit in the European Union. Everyone knows that the only elected part of the EU, the Parliament, is probably the weakest in terms of balance of power, and the Council of Ministers is probably the strongest. We alone cannot do anything about that, although the Select Committee discusses the matter from time to time.
One of the most significant recommendations is the introduction of pre-Council and post-Council scrutiny, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred. That will enable us to find out much more about what goes on at the Council of Ministers. As that is probably the most powerful of the three institutions that make up the EU, and the one accused of meeting in the greatest secrecy, anything that this Parliament can do to shine a light on the work of the Council of Ministers and to bring greater transparency not only for our sake, but for the sake of the people who voted us here, is valuable.
My second comment relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in an intervention. The efficiency and effectiveness of any scrutiny system depend partly on what supports and facilitates it.
The Committee has long advocated the use of information technology and e-mail—the electronic transmission of documents from the EU to the member state Parliaments. Documents have to be received and scrutinised and questions have to be asked within the tight time scale of six weeks, so e-mailing would reduce the time taken to receive documents from 10 days to a matter of hours.
If we are to strengthen scrutiny, we must allow as long as possible for that scrutiny to be effective. We need every minute that is at our disposal. I am pleased to say that,


buried in the back of the report, there is a discussion on the electronic transmission of documents. Last autumn, the Select Committee raised that matter with the then Minister responsible and we were assured that pilots would take place to assess its feasibility. I hope that that matter will be pushed forward, because we are particularly concerned about it.
As I said, I welcome the Select Committee's recommendations. I look forward to the transformation of the European Legislation Committee into the European Scrutiny Committee. I have taken the precaution of looking at the Order Paper and I am pleased to see that my name has been put forward for membership of that Committee, which is a relief.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to say that this is an opportunity to bring greater transparency to, and understanding of, the work of the EU which, in turn, will mean greater democracy.

Sir Peter Emery: First, I thank those hon. Members who have paid tribute to the original Procedure Committee which made the recommendations on which the scrutiny procedures of the House have been based. I rather feel as though I have been here before, and I have no doubt that I shall be here again.
It is interesting to elaborate on what the Leader of the House said about the success of our scrutiny activities, inadequate though some of us may think they have been. Without doubt, Britain considers the details of European regulations to a much greater extent than any other member state.
There are two interesting alternatives. Members of the Belgian Parliament meet Belgian Members of the European Parliament, but to debate broad European topics rather than regulations. There is no real consideration of regulations at all. Danish Ministers cannot approve a decision in the Council of Ministers until the matter has been considered by the Danish Parliament, but, again, the Danish Parliament does not consider the regulations. They are more or less approved en masse, and they are no great restriction on the Council of Ministers. Therefore, the amount of detail into which the two Committees have gone deserves the greatest praise.
I thank the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee. When he entered the House, he was something of a revolutionary, but the Committee has made him a most responsible Member of the House, something about which I am delighted. As he will know, I say that in the nicest way possible.
The hon. Gentleman is correct about the number of the Committees. He will recall that the original recommendation, way back in the mid-1980s, was that there should be five. At that time, my Government rejected that. I moved an amendment to the motion before the House and, with the Procedure Committee, divided the House, because we believed that there should have been five. Given the range of material to be considered, the relatively small number of 13 Members have a massive job to do, and that frequently discourages the experts from coming forward.
We recommended five then and I am sad to say that, again, the Government have rejected the recommendation of five, limiting it to three. I am sorry that my hon. Friend

the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is willing to go along with that. The original Procedure Committee felt that the experts in the House on certain subjects should serve on those Committees. If those Committees are broken down, as is suggested in the Modernisation Committee's report on the scrutiny of European business, one sees how the division into five would allow experts on agriculture and health to specialise in one Committee, experts on the Treasury and home affairs to specialise in one Committee and experts on foreign affairs and trade and industry to specialise in one Committee. In those circumstances, specialists would be much more willing to serve on those Committees than they are at the moment.
Even I can quickly calculate that 13 times three is 39, but, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and the Select Committee, suggested, a Committee could easily comprise nine Members and, as nine times five is 45, only six additional Members would have to be allocated. In this Parliament, that would be four Labour Members and two Opposition Members. I cannot believe that the Whips could not find that number of Members. Even 11 times five, which is 55, would mean only 16 additional Members–11 Labour Members and 4 Conservatives and one Liberal or other Opposition Member, or three and two, whatever the division may be. With a Labour majority, there would be no great difficulty in finding that number of Members to man the Committees. Therefore, a great opportunity has again been rejected by the House in moving to only three rather than the original recommendation of five.

Mr. Tyler: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, I very much support him on that. However, he must choose his words with care. Just now, he said that the House has rejected this proposal. Technically, at this moment, the matter has been agreed only through the usual channels—between the main Opposition and those on the Government Front Benches. I support the hon. Gentleman and I hope that, in due course, the Government and the Conservative party will think again.

Sir Peter Emery: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I shall do my best to make the Conservative party see sense on this. I have been trying for 16 years now. I might succeed in another four or five years. We move slowly. We have gone from two to three, but I hope that we can make the last dash fairly quickly.
One thing that has not been dealt with in the report is the problem that arises in a Committee if a Committee decides on something that is contrary to the original motion moved by the Government and contrary to what the Government wish. That may be the Committee's decision but, when the matter then goes to the House, the Government may move the original motion, which is not what the Committee had agreed. Many people do not realise that what the Committee has decided is not what comes before the House.
The great difficulty is that a motion has to be moved by a Minister, and the Government will not move a motion that they do not agree with. To that I say that we should have amended the Standing Orders so that an hon. Member would be allowed to move an amendment to a motion, although the Government would, of course, be able to reject it and then table their own amendment. The aspect that only the original motion, but never the decision of the Committee, is referred to the House is misleading; it should have been dealt with, but it has not.


"The Scrutiny of European Union Business", which was presented to Parliament by the Leader of the House, recommends:
Informal links with the European Parliament should be encouraged.
Labour Members have said that there should be more visits by all Members of Parliament. That is something with which I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that Select Committees should take the opportunity that exists within the present regulations on visiting to set up links with European Parliament Committees dealing with the same areas.
Each Select Committee should appoint a rapporteur who would make it his duty to visit either Strasbourg or Brussels—whichever was necessary—to see what a European Parliament Committee was getting up to. In that way, we could have an input before reports were decided. Once those reports have been published, the chances of us having any input are nil.
That process would be fairly involved, but it would mean more direct contact between our Select Committees and the equivalent Committees in the European Parliament. I am not saying that that would be perfect—in many ways, it would be difficult—but it would be a step towards achieving an input for Members of Parliament in decisions made by the Committees of the European Parliament. There would certainly be a strengthening of links between this Parliament and the European Parliament, something that I should like to see happen.
I am delighted that the Government have moved in this direction in respect of the Modernisation Committee's recommendations. With the exception of the Government's proposal on the number of Committees, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Roger Casale: I am delighted to participate in the debate as a member of the European Legislation Committee, because this is a watershed in our development. This morning, I awoke as a member of that Committee, but, having checked the Order Paper, I know that I shall awake tomorrow as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee because today we are about to change our Committee's name.
Hon. Members have mentioned the lack of recognition by some of our colleagues for the work of the European Legislation Committee. My constituents sometimes ask what Committee I am on. When I say that I am a member of the European Legislation Committee, they ask, "What is that and what are you up to?" Some of them think that I am involved in some sort of seditious activity to do with Europe.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) made the unusual suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of our Committee, was something of a revolutionary before he had any contact with Europe, but has now become a rational man. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that some of his colleagues—perhaps through their contact with Europe—have gone in the opposite direction.
The work of our Committee is important in terms of safeguarding the interests of my constituents and of the national interest in Europe, and I am proud and pleased to be a member of it. I sometimes liken our work to that of customs officers at a border. All sorts of directives, regulations and recommendations from the European Commission and the Council of Ministers come across for decision by the Government and the House. Our Committee stands next to the conveyor belt, and when we see something that may have political, legal or financial implications, we stop the belt, unpack that directive or regulation and examine it more closely.
We do this aspect of scrutiny work very well, and that is reflected in the report of the Modernisation Committee and the Government's response. As we come to the end of this Session, the work of our Committee has been given a clean bill of health and our Chairman and the Committee have received a good end-of-term report. However, the recommendations in the Modernisation Committee's report and in the Government's response are shaped by much wider processes than procedural considerations in the House—important as they are—or by the work and the momentum of our Committee itself.
I should highlight the dynamic context which has resulted in the new proposals. On the proactive side, there is a clearly defined need for greater scrutiny of decisions taken in Brussels. My constituents want that, the country wants that and it is good that the Government want that, too. The Committee has the ambition, which I think is shared by the Government, for not only more, but better, scrutiny, and the proposals before us go in that direction. What we do, we should do well, and if anything can be done to enable our Committee to do its work better, that is all to the good.
Many of the proposals in the report and in the Government's response are shaped by that ambition. In particular, the closer co-operation that is foreseen with other Select Committees, the European committees of other national Parliaments in the EU and the European Parliament will lead to a greater level of experience, better information about EU decision making, an exchange of best practice and improved communication between the Government and the House. Other Committees of the House and committees across Europe will be partners, not competitors, in the scrutiny role with a common endeavour to do the job well.
On the reactive side, we should consider these reforms in the context of the evolving nature of the EU, and especially in the context of the treaties of Amsterdam and of Maastricht. In many ways, the report could be read as a parliamentary response to the intergovernmental treaty signed up to at Maastricht by the previous Government.
The Maastricht treaty is worthy of particular emphasis, because much in the report is aimed at scrutiny of the second and third pillar structures. Third pillar scrutiny represents a pyrrhic victory for the Committee, because, subsequently at Amsterdam, many of the those third pillar responsibilities and functions were transferred into the first pillar. Moreover, the present Government have opted out of the aspects relating to asylum, immigration and border control.
The remit of our Committee is being broadened and its responsibilities strengthened. All that will lead to greater and more informed dialogue with our Government about what they are doing in Brussels on our behalf. Thanks to


the report and the Government's response, if we do move towards the stars of the European Union—towards closer co-operation—we shall do so with our feet and those of this Parliament firmly on the ground.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: I speak with caution because other right hon. and hon. Members have contributed greatly to the scrutiny of European legislation in the House. I wish to make just one point. Last week, as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, I went to Brussels for a European Parliament conference on EU fraud and cross-border crime. During the conference, Members of the European Parliament of different parties asked me what the British public thought about their proposals to create a common EU criminal law system to cope with those problems, a common judicial area and a common police force. I had to scratch my head and tell the truth: the British public are not aware of such proposals. "All right," they said, "What is the British Parliament's view on those proposals?" Again, I scratched my head and said that many of us in the House were unaware of much that comes from the European Parliament and other institutions.
Some of our Select Committees, such as the Home Affairs Select Committee, should take a real interest in what happens in the European Parliament and elsewhere. Whether we like it is irrelevant; we should know more. I do not feel well informed enough. If this discussion results in better oversight and scrutiny, and more awareness among our colleagues of what is happening among our European colleagues, that must be good.

Mr. Michael Jack: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for his work. I have felt the heat when he has scrutinised me, as a former Minister, on fishery matters and I know the excellence of the job that he did. The role of Fisheries Minister introduced me to Europe and made me realise that the House gets involved far too late in the process of scrutiny to have a real influence on shaping United Kingdom policies when they go before the Council. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary who will reply to this debate, and the Leader of the House, to look again at mechanisms whereby Parliament may be advised much earlier on some of the formative thinking that is going on.
When I was a Minister, both in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and at the Treasury, I used to get my officials to produce for me a chart showing all the Committees that they attended regularly in Brussels so that I knew of the forthcoming attractions. I was surprised and sometimes shocked at the amount of new ideas and legislation that was coming along, on which I had not received proper briefing. I therefore urge the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House to find a way of advising the House what is going on so that we may have a much earlier sight of what is happening and can take action.
I strongly support other hon. Members who mentioned greater transparency. The more we know about what is happening, and the earlier we know it, the better. I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who wanted greater opportunities to travel to Europe. Some colleagues do not

use their one trip a year because one visit is not enough to develop a relationship, specialise in a subject, make appointments to visit officials, and so on. If there were proper opportunities to visit, we would be better informed and scrutiny would be much improved.
We should all do as much as we can to improve newspapers' reporting of European activity. If we are to get the necessary backing from the public, they must be much better informed about European legislation and activity. I endorse and support the House's attempts to improve scrutiny, but it would be better if we could be involved earlier.

Sir Patrick Cormack: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talks about the newspapers reporting Europe. Would that they report what goes on in this place more fully. I doubt whether a single word will appear on the non-existent parliamentary pages tomorrow about this short, informative and important debate. I congratulate all those who have taken part in it, including seven Back Benchers. It is good to listen to the wise experience of those who have served for a long time on Committees. We heard from two new Members—the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale)—who were on the Select Committee and will be translated on to the new Committee, and we heard from the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).
We should all ponder what they said, just as we should take extremely seriously the points made by my exceptionally experienced colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). I take his strictures in good part. It is important that we look at new Committees and see exactly how they work. Although we were persuaded by the Government's arguments that, to have three with 13 members had a lot of merit, my right hon. Friend made a good point about having five with 11 members. The hon. Member for Clydesdale echoed that point. When people with so much experience and knowledge of examining European documents and directives say that, we must listen carefully. I hope that the Minister agrees that we must monitor carefully just how the new Committees work.
I do not want to divide the House this evening. I hope that, in the spirit of consensus that has prevailed throughout the debate, we can agree to the new orders and then monitor their operation carefully. It has been instructive to listen to my right hon. Friends the Members for East Devon and for Fylde and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) discuss closer liaison with the European Parliament. As I said in my opening remarks, we must have closer liaison. We should listen to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon in that regard. When the new parliamentary building opens in a couple of years' time, it would be sensible to have one room available for our friends and colleagues from the European Parliament to use as of right on a regular basis to meet Members of this House. I would welcome such an innovation and I hope that it would commend itself to other right hon. and hon. Members.
I promised the Minister that I would not erode the time in which he wishes to respond. With those few words, therefore, I wish the orders good speed.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I have listened carefully to the views expressed during the debate and I am pleased that the House has welcomed the package of measures that we are presenting today to improve the process by which we consider European business. May I add my personal commendation to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) who, the whole House agrees, has done a splendid job in chairing the European Legislation Committee? I hope that the Committee will shortly be reborn and he will again take up the challenge of ensuring that legislation that comes before the House is scrutinised even more widely and deeply than hitherto.
I commend the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the generally supportive stance that he has taken on behalf of the official Opposition, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who has offered, in the nicest possible way, constructive support in the criticisms that he has made of some of the measures before the House this evening.
Ensuring that the House can properly scrutinise European Union business and hold Ministers to account for their actions in the Council of Ministers has universal support throughout the House. The measures proposed today are the culmination of a thorough examination of the scrutiny process undertaken by the European Legislation Committee, the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee, as well as by the Government, and respond to the range of recommendations made by those Committees.
The changes cover matters of principle—for example, they will allow the House fully to scrutinise business under the second and third pillars—and will extend coverage of the scrutiny reserve resolution. In addition, the procedural elements of the current process will be improved, including arrangements for debating European issues and providing a framework for other departmental Select Committees to become more involved in the scrutiny process. The three Committees are to be commended on their work.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire talked about taking these matters on the Floor of the House. The House will recall that, as well as specific debates on European Union documents, each year the House has two more general debates on developments in the European Union, particularly the business to be taken at European Council meetings. In most instances, a Standing Committee debate is the earliest opportunity and most effective way for hon. Members to question Ministers and debate European Union documents. The Modernisation Committee did not recommend any change in the procedure for debates on the Floor of the House. However, it is our intention, where appropriate, to bring matters on the Floor of the House.
The issue of a national Parliament office was also raised. The House authorities have done considerable preparatory work for today's debate. If the House approves the Modernisation Committee's report, a formal proposal will be made for consideration by the House of Commons Commission at the appropriate time.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), referred to the EU travel scheme. The current scheme was introduced in 1991 by resolution of the House, and has a set budget of

£250,000 per annum. The cost of individual journeys comes from the vote for MPs' paying allowances, so the Leader of the House is responsible for that, not the domestic Committees.
In recent years, some hon. Members have availed themselves of that allowance to visit European institutions, so as better to apprise themselves of the work of those institutions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made it abundantly clear that she is prepared to consider how we can deal with those matters with greater flexibility and within budget constraints, so that hon. Members can make such visits on a different basis.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire asked about the arrangements after devolution. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Leader of House said. We shall ensure that proper arrangements are put in place for the devolved bodies to scrutinise European Union business, and for their views to be taken into account by the Government. The precise arrangements are still being considered, but the devolved bodies themselves will examine how best to carry out their scrutiny function and how their views can be fed into the wider scrutiny process.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It would help the scrutiny and information process if the explanatory memorandums attached to each piece of European legislation were published. They set out the arguments for it, including information on ministerial responsibility, policy implications, compliance cost assessments and the process of consultation. They are available on the yellow forms, but if a consolidated weekly edition were laid before the House and made available to the other Assemblies and Parliaments in the United Kingdom and to pressure groups and organisations, that would help us to understand what is going on.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government consistently look for ways to reduce the paper chase. We are committed to reducing the amount of paper produced by government. However, we shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the need to have more debates on the Floor of the House. I am mindful of the difficulties faced by smaller parties in the scrutiny process. One reason for keeping the size of the Standing Committee at 13 is to ensure that the representation of other parties is maintained. The Government have eight members, the official Opposition have three and other parties have two. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) referred to the electronic transmission of EU documents. Only last week, I attended a meeting of Ministers in Vienna, at which the United Kingdom Government were seen as a brand leader in trying to achieve a better system of electronic communication. Work on that specific issue is under way to produce an effective system for the electronic receipt of EU documents in capital cities throughout the European Union. A pilot system is being developed and evaluated. It has been particularly difficult to secure agreement on the systems and the architecture required to introduce such a system across all 15 member states.
We respect the view that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has expressed for some years. We must reflect what the Committee has agreed.
The Modernisation Committee did not recommend to the House any such change. As the right hon. Gentleman said, he did not persuade the Conservative Government to change the procedure. It must ultimately be for the Government to decide what is contained in the motion they put to the House.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) rightly drew attention to the importance of departmental Select Committees examining European Union issues. The Government agree with that, and some of the minor Standing Order changes are designed to effect that improved relationship.
I believe that the improvements that the House is asked to support represent a truly comprehensive package that will continue to keep our scrutiny arrangements among the most effective in Europe. That is shown by the consensus that has been reached this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Scrutiny of European Business (HC 791) and takes note of the White Paper on the Scrutiny of European Business (Cm. 4095).

Resolved,
That the Resolution of the House of 24th October 1990 relating to European Community Legislation be rescinded and the following Resolution be made:
That,

(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council or in the European Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—

(a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Scrutiny Committee has not completed its scrutiny) or
(b) which is awaiting consideration by the House (that is, which has been recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) but in respect of which the House has not come to a Resolution).

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes—

(a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;
(b) political agreement;
(c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty of Rome (co-decision), agreement to a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament); and
(d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189c of the Treaty of Rome (co-operation), agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement—

(a) to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;
(b) to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated

that agreement need not be withheld pending consideration.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting consideration by the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

(a) in every such case, to the European Scrutiny Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and
(b) in the case of a proposal awaiting consideration by the House, to the House at the first opportunity after giving agreement.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.

Resolved,
That, upon the entering into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Resolution on Scrutiny of European Business (No. 2) shall have effect with the following modifications:
In paragraph (1) the words "a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union" are replaced by the words "a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union"; and
in paragraph (2)(c) the words "a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament)" are replaced by the words "a common position, to an act in the form of a common position incorporating amendments proposed by the European Parliament, and to a joint text".

Ordered,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Standing Committees):

".—(1) There shall be three standing committees, called European Standing Committees, to which shall stand referred for consideration on motion, unless the House otherwise orders, such European Union documents as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) as may be recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.

(2) If a motion that specified European Union documents as aforesaid shall not stand referred to a European Standing Committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

(3) Each European Standing Committee shall consist of thirteen Members nominated for the duration of a Parliament by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

(a) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and
(b) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(4) The quorum of a European Standing Committee shall be three, excluding the chairman.

(5) Any Member, though not nominated to a European Standing Committee, may take part in the committee's proceedings and may move amendments to any motion made as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below, but such Member shall not make any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the committee may make a motion as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below; and the Government may appoint the precedence of notices of motion to be considered in each committee.

(6) The European Standing Committees, and the principal subject matter of the European Union documents to be referred to each, shall be as set out below; and in making recommendations for further consideration, the European Scrutiny Committee shall specify the


committee to which in its opinion the documents ought to be referred; and subject to paragraph (2) of this order, the documents shall be referred to that committee accordingly

European Standing Committees
Principal subject matter



Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments:


A
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Environment, Transport and the Regions; Forestry Commission; (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)


B
HM Treasury (including HM Customs and Excise); Social Security; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; International Development; Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Department; together with any matters not otherwise allocated by this Order


C
Trade and Industry; Employment and Education; Culture, Media and Sport; Health

(7) The chairman may permit Ministers of the Crown to make statements and to answer questions thereon put by Members, in respect of each motion relative to a European Union document or documents referred to a European Standing Committee of which a Minister shall have given notice; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the first such statement:
Provided that the chairman may, if he sees fit, allow questions to be taken for a further period of not more than half an hour after the expiry of that period.

(8) Following the conclusion of the proceedings under the previous paragraph, the motion referred to therein may be made, to which amendments may be moved; and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously concluded, the chairman shall interrupt the consideration of such motion and amendments when the committee shall have sat for a period of two and a half hours, and shall then put forthwith successively:

(a) the question on any amendment already proposed from the chair; and
(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended).

The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.

(9) If any motion is made in the House in relation to any European Union document in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this order, the Speaker shall forthwith put successively—

(a) the question on any amendment selected by her which may be moved;
(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended);
and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

(10) With the modifications provided in this order, the following Standing Orders shall apply to European Standing Committees:

No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees);
No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and
No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees)."

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 143 (Select Committee on European Legislation) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Scrutiny Committee):

(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the European Scrutiny Committee, to examine European Union documents and—

(a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which may be affected;

(b) to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees); and
(c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters.

The expression 'European Union document' in this order and in Standing Orders No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 119 (European Standing Committees) means—

(i) any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;
(ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;
(iii) any proposal to define a common position or for joint action under Title V of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
(iv) any proposal for a joint position, joint action or a convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
(v) any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;
(vi) any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The committee shall consist of sixteen Members.

(3) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.

(4) The committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(5) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.

(6) The quorum of the committee shall be five.

(7) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.

(8) Every such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

(9) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before such sub-committees.

(10) The quorum of every such sub-committee shall be two.

(11) The committee shall have power to seek from any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its opinion on any European Union document, and to require a reply to such a request within such time as it may specify.

(12) The committee or any sub-committee appointed by it shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order or with any committee of the Lords on the European Communities, or any sub-committee of that committee, for the purposes of deliberating or examining witnesses.

(13) The committee shall have power to communicate to any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its evidence or any other document relating to matters of common interest.

(14) The committees specified for the purposes of this order are those appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) including any sub-committees of such committees, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Environmental Audit Committee.

(15) Unless the House otherwise orders, each member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a Member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

Ordered,

That the following consequential Amendments to Standing Orders be made:

In Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), line 3, leave out "Community documents" and insert "Union documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee))".

In Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in Standing Committees), line 18, leave out "Community" and insert "Union".

In Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration), line 20, at the end insert:

"(c) to communicate to the European Scrutiny Committee its evidence and any other document relating to matters of common interest; and (d) to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence."; In Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts),

line 17, after "departments)" insert "and to the European Scrutiny Committee",

line 21, at end add:
(4) The committee shall have power to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence.

In Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)

line 31, after "and" insert "to the European Scrutiny Committee,"

line 39, at end insert "or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence;"

line 46, after "thereof" insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,"

In Standing Order No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee), in line 30, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,".

Ordered,

That, with effect from the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) shall have effect with the following Amendments:

line 21, leave out "to define a common position or for joint action" and insert "for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position";

line 23, after "Council" insert "or to the European Council"; and line 24, leave out "joint position, joint action" and insert "common position, framework decision, decision".

Ordered,

That Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Roger Casale, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Ms Jennifer Jones, Mrs. Rosemary McKenna, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Ms Elizabeth Filkin be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the retirement of Sir Gordon Downey, KCB, on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission (HC 1143), dated 9th November 1998.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]

Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is only right that we should welcome the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and pay tribute to the retiring commissioner, Sir Gordon Downey. One of the advantages we have in this country is that a number of individuals have come up through the public service and have felt it right to dedicate themselves to public service, even though the financial rewards are not as great as they may be elsewhere. Gordon Downey is an exemplar of such an approach.
After the war, there was a common feeling among some people that they should repay the work that was done for them by their predecessors. In the 1980s, that attitude did not receive high favour. It was almost mocked, and it was felt that those who did not make use of their talents and make a lot of money were failing the country and themselves. That was an appalling attitude. Some people were scorned for their work for the country and for the community. The idea that society was not as important as the individual failed to take account of the enormous value that we get from people who devote themselves to raising and maintaining standards of public life.
Gordon Downey is an outstanding public servant. It is a great privilege to be in public service: it is not a job like any other. The fact that we have so many such people is a tribute to the dedication that they have brought to the public service and to the civil service. Sir Gordon also worked with the Public Accounts Committee for some years. When I was asked whether he would be a suitable Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I was delighted: I could not imagine that anyone else could do the job as well as he could. My judgment has been borne out by events.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does my right hon. Friend feel that Elizabeth Filkin should be given more resources than have been given to Sir Gordon Downey in order to carry out the work as effectively and comprehensively as possible?

Mr. Sheldon: Sir Gordon never claimed to be short of resources, although few were available. He carried out his duties with great dedication and, through his ability, was capable of dealing with every question that arose. Of course, he had a superb background for the job. He was in the Treasury—I knew him there more than 20 years ago—and then became Comptroller and Auditor-General of the old Exchequer and Audit Department before it became the National Audit Office. He retired from there to become chairman of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association. As he says himself, he retired from numerous jobs to take up ever more jobs that fitted his experience and abilities.
Sir Gordon retired from that job to become ombudsman for two newspapers. He retired from that job to become a regulator of hospital authorities. If we ever wished to


appoint a "conscience of the nation", Sir Gordon would clearly be a prominent candidate. He has undertaken his work splendidly. Following his examination of more than 40 complaints that were brought to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, the results were unanimous. Unanimity flowed from the work that he produced for the Committee. When he eventually retired, we asked him for his views, which are contained in our 19th report.
A growing tradition is for an outstanding public servant to be asked, at the end of his service, to describe the lessons that he has learnt, so that they can be passed on. That was done on a number of occasions in the Public Accounts Committee, and—as can be seen from our 19th report—it was done in the case of the retiring parliamentary commissioner. Sir Gordon told us that the disciplinary system had worked well. He also told us that he would like to see a statute of limitations—that in too many instances people had delved far into the past, when attitudes were rather different, and that such actions might not have been in accordance with the standards that we now expect.
If the public perception of the work of the House of Commons has improved—as I hope it has—much of that improvement must be due to Sir Gordon's work. That, I think, is the finest farewell tribute that could be offered. We should be judged according to whether the public perceive us in a way that would be recognisable 20 or 30 years ago—allowing for some criticisms; the House will always receive criticisms.
When Elizabeth Filkin appeared before the Standards and Privileges Committee this morning, we were able to discuss her role. She will be taking on the kind of work that Sir Gordon did so well. It is intended that she should work four days a week, but that may not be necessary: we hope that the amount of work, which was initially large, will diminish as new standards are more widely recognised. People now accept standards that were produced two or three years ago, and I trust that that will mean that far fewer representations will be made to the commissioner.
We thank Sir Gordon Downey for all the splendid work that he has done. He laid down a road for others to follow, and that is one of the great tributes that we can pay him.

Sir George Young: I want to say two things, very briefly. First, let me join the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in paying tribute to Sir Gordon Downey's work. The first holder of any post has a huge responsibility, because he establishes the framework within which the post develops, and maps out a way forward. Sir Gordon found himself in the middle, between two of the most powerful forces in a democratic society—a sovereign Parliament and a free press—at a time when relationships between the two were deteriorating. He discharged one of the most difficult jobs in the public sector with patience, diligence and tact. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, he has helped to begin to restore the House's reputation, and we all owe him our gratitude.
Secondly, I want to support the appointment of Elizabeth Filkin. As Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I encountered her when she was adjudicator for the Inland

Revenue. I was impressed by her commitment to her job and her staff, but, crucially, I was impressed by the fact that she retained the confidence of the Revenue, the body that she was investigating. That showed that she was fair, and that her work commanded respect. I looked at her latest report, which was commended for
good plain English and clear strong messages"—
a welcome contrast to the legislative prose with which most of us deal for most of the time.
I support Elizabeth Filkin's nomination, commend her to the House and wish her well.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be brief.
I add my grateful acknowledgement to Sir Gordon Downey. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, Sir Gordon's integrity and sterling work have helped to restore the reputation of Members of Parliament, which was at a low ebb when he was appointed.
I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will be given the resources that she needs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that Sir Gordon Downey never complained about what might have been seen as sparse resources and facilities. Let us hope that Elizabeth Filkin's work load diminishes over time—that would be a fine reflection on this place—but I hope that, if she needs more resources, the House will ensure that they are provided.
Let me repeat my thanks to a fine and honourable man.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I cannot promise to be as brief as the other speakers, but I consider this to be an important debate. I think that the House should take the appointment of a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards very seriously, because it is a sensitive appointment. Apart from anything else, it commands a salary that is almost twice what Members of Parliament receive, for four days' work a week. I invite any hon. Member who works for only four days a week to put his or her hand up. I doubt that I shall see many hands rise.

Mr. Eric Forth: They are the ones who are not here.

Mr. Howarth: They have been sent on an away day by the Labour Whips.
When Sir Gordon was appointed, his salary of £72,000 was more than double that of a Member of Parliament—then about £33,000. In an article written in 1995, Lord Renton, then Member of Parliament for Mid-Sussex, said of the discrepancy:
This is like paying the company night watchman twice as much as the sales director.
He made a valid point. It needs to be taken into account when we consider these matters.
Sir Gordon Downey's appointment unquestionably reinforced in the public mind the idea that the House had something to be ashamed of. The vast majority of hon. Members work extremely hard. They are diligent. They generally pursue issues in the way in which they believe


they need to be pursued, promoting not a partial interest, but one that they have formed out of conviction, so it is unfortunate that Sir Gordon Downey's appointment—far from helping to reduce the public disaffection for the House, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) believes—helped to reinforce the idea that there was something deeply dishonourable about the House. I do not believe that to be true. Of course there have been problems, but they did not warrant the sort of attack that was made on the honour of the House.
I do not know Elizabeth Filkin; I have not had the privilege. I was not on the House of Commons Commission. I am not a member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, so I have not met her. Therefore, I have relied only on what I have read in the newspaper. Last week, I read an interesting article in The Times that suggested that her credentials were excellent:
For the past five years she has gained a reputation as an investigator of complaints made against the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency.
It was also suggested that
The world of Westminster may seem a fitting job for a former social worker and childcare expert who has written several academic books on dealing with errant charges.
I hope that she has left all that behind her, because we are not errant charges in need of being taken in hand by a schoolmistress.
One of the things that I noticed on returning to the House after a five-year absence is how much we are now employees. I felt like an employee rather than an hon. Member: the number of forms one has to fill in; we have to do this, that and the other. Therefore, I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will not regard her task as primarily to bring people to book.
I draw some comfort from something that Elizabeth Filkin was quoted as saying by Valerie Elliott in The Times:
I am aware that all of us can make mistakes and look foolish. One can always reflect on how things could have been done better.
I hope that she will bring that outlook to the discharge of her responsibilities. As every right hon. and hon. Member knows, we have immense pressures on us. There is no spare time in the day, and hardly any at night. For what it is worth, I was telephoned at a quarter to 6 this morning by Talk Radio and invited to give my views on an issue.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Did Talk Radio pay you?

Mr. Howarth: Talk Radio pays, does it? Well, it did not pay me. I put the telephone down, but I shall be looking for a handsome apology for having been roused from my slumbers, having got to bed at 2.30 am, after working late in the House.
Hon. Members work hard. There are great pressures on us. There are many competing priorities: our duties to our constituents, in the House and to our families. It is possible that, being frail and human, occasionally we will make mistakes. I am sure that all hon. Members think that there are things that they have done or omitted to do that may have been better not done or done, and that they regret. I hope that, in acknowledging human frailty, Miss Filkin, or Mrs. Filkin, whatever she is, will be good enough to understand our frailties in this place and not

encourage those elements of the media who are sitting up there like vultures, seeking to trip up Members of Parliament at every turn.
The other day, I was rung up by a newspaper, not a radio station, that suggested that I had tabled three questions on which I should have declared an interest. The whole tenor of the conversation was that, somehow, I had behaved, "Of course, not improperly, Mr. Howarth," but that I had been in breach of the rules.
I checked with the Registrar of Members' Interests and I was not in breach of the rules, but there are journalists sitting there, some aided and abetted by Labour Members, who do not like the idea of Members of Parliament having outside interests, and who seek simply to trip up Members of Parliament for some minor omission that in no way reflects on their integrity or the way in which they conduct themselves in the House. Therefore, as I say, I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will bear those points in mind.
I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will learn some of the lessons of the past few years. It is going to be her responsibility, if the House is minded to approve her appointment, to uphold the dignity of Parliament; that is one of the charges that will be upon her, but I urge her to regard that as a two-way street and not simply a question of investigating complaints against Members about things that they may have omitted to do.
I hope that Elizabeth Filkin will regard it as her duty to protect the integrity of Parliament by ensuring that those who bring unfounded and serious allegations against Members pay some penalty, once it is decided that their charges are baseless. That is why I shall not join those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to salute the departure of Sir Gordon Downey; I do not. I think that he has been a disgrace—[Interruption. The House may not like to hear it, but we have free speech in this place and I believe that he has behaved, in some respects, disgracefully. I shall tell the House why I am particularly exercised.
Soon after returning to the House last year, I went to see Sir Gordon Downey in respect of one investigation that he had recently undertaken and concluded, a serious investigation where allegations were made against the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), that he had been guilty of taking bribes of no less than £1 million from Mr. Tiny Rowland—the complaint was made by Mr. Al Fayed.
That was duly investigated by Sir Gordon. Shortly before the general election of 1997, he dismissed the allegations as baseless, but they had all been paraded all over the newspapers, and Labour Members could revel in the idea that there was no smoke without fire and that a senior Minister was involved; it was great stuff for the sleaze machine and all the rest of it. When Sir Gordon found, of course, that there was no case to answer, that appeared as a footnote in the newspapers, but the damage had been done.
I said to Sir Gordon, "Having found that the accusation was baseless, why did you not require that Al Fayed be summoned to the Bar of the House to apologise?" "Oh, Mr. Howarth, we could not possibly do that," he said. "Why not?" I asked. "Because that would deter other people from making complaints," he said.
That was an absolutely disgraceful dereliction of the duty of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He should have been far more robust. A grave charge was


made against an hon. Member, which reflected on all of us, at least all of those who were in the House at the time. Sir Gordon failed miserably in upholding the dignity of the House by failing to require, or at least to recommend to the Committee, that Mr. Al Fayed be brought before the House to answer for what he had done. It was on the basis of that conversation with Sir Gordon that I felt deeply depressed about the way in which he had conducted his business.
The House will know, because I have raised it here before, that I believe that the manner in which Sir Gordon dealt with the case of Mr. Neil Hamilton was also a dereliction of duty. Sir Gordon's whole case was based on compelling evidence that Mr. Hamilton had taken money. He could not determine how much money Mr. Hamilton had taken from Mr. Al Fayed, how he had taken the money, when he had taken the money and, despite having crawled through his accounts, what he had done with the money. Nevertheless, it was good enough for Sir Gordon Downey to find that there was compelling evidence.
The truth is that Sir Gordon Downey rejected the original claims made by The Guardian—which has been part of the overall conspiracy, in cahoots with some Labour Members—that Mr. Hamilton had been paid via Mr. Ian Greer. Nevertheless, after finding that those claims had not stuck, Al Fayed made other accusations—which, when they too did not stick, he changed for a third time.
In his "compelling evidence", Sir Gordon relied on the evidence of Mr. Al Fayed's employees. If I may detain the House for a moment—I have rather a lot of literature on the matter—I remind hon. Members that, at paragraph 800 of the Committee's first report, last July, Sir Gordon said that Ms Bond, who is Mr. Al Fayed's right-hand lady, and Mr. Bromfield, who was the doorkeeper at 60 Park lane, the location of Mr. Al Fayed's headquarters—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mr. Howarth: When I have finished this point, I shall of course allow my hon. Friend to intervene.
Sir Gordon stated that those people
impressed me as reliable witnesses and I found no discrepancies in their evidence which could not be accounted for by uncertainties of recollection after a period of 10 years.
Unlike Mr. Bromfield, Mr. Hamilton was allowed no such deficiency in his recollection.
Mr. Bromfield testified that Mr. Hamilton had picked up envelopes at 60 Park lane—which of course never happened. It has now been revealed that, for about four months, Mr. Bromfield regularly handed over envelopes to Miss Francesca Pollard, who was, and acknowledges that she was, in Al Fayed's pay. Mr. Bromfield could not remember her, but he could remember Mr. Hamilton, who was never there. He was a totally unreliable witness. He was one of many such witnesses.
Sir Gordon completely failed in pursuing a course of natural justice. Charges of such a nature should have been judged on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt—which Sir Gordon did not apply—and not on the balance of probabilities. It is extremely interesting that he failed

to call key witnesses who would have told him that those employees were unreliable. I remind the House that those employees appeared only at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. They had held their tongues for three years, and came forward only three days before the case was due to go to court.
Sir Gordon completely refused to take the evidence of Mr. Christoph Betterman, who had been no less than a director and vice-chairman of Harrods.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). I should do that, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I say this with some hesitation. If my hon. Friend has already dealt with the issues with which he wanted to deal, my remarks will be unnecessary. However, if he is thinking of going into the matter in some depth, I should tell him that, when I was involved in a High Court action, I was cautioned to be rather cautious about taking up issues that might be further determined by a court. I do not want to say any more than that, but I have a fear.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to my attention. He makes a fair point, to which I shall of course have regard. I do not want to take much longer, but I should give way to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not have a legal warning, but merely say that—on the occasion of the retirement of a very distinguished public servant—the tactic of raking over old, dead coals and going over evidence again is not only ungracious but downright wrong. However, if the hon. Gentlemen is going to do that, why does he not declare his own interest as a close friend of the man about whom he is talking, and as someone who was coupled with him in a libel action and gained damages with him from the BBC?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We should not deal with issues concerning the BBC and events of some time ago, as they have nothing to do with the motion. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is speaking within the rules of debate. If he were not, I would soon stop him. However, I also remind him that hon. Members have a tradition of being careful not to malign those with no protection.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the mover of the motion, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, may I have some guidance? The report that we have tabled deals with the nomination of a candidate and is essentially about welcoming a new person to the job. Therefore is it technically in order—as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said—to rake over the coals?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said to the hon. Member for Aldershot—and as he should know by now—


the occupant of the Chair would not allow the debate to go out of order. The report mentions the work done by Sir Gordon Downey. The hon. Member should have mentioned occasionally the new commissioner, which he has done. However, I reiterate that there is a tradition in the House of being careful in dealing with privilege. An hon. Member who is attacked by another hon. Member will have an opportunity to rebut, but hon. Members are careful about using our privilege in the Chamber.

Mr. Howarth: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am most grateful to you for making a very considered response. I have attempted to conduct myself in a manner that I hope the House will regard as being as courteous as possible in the circumstances.
I tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that every hon. Member knows that I am a close friend of Neil Hamilton; I do not have to declare that. Moreover, I tell the hon. Gentleman that his comments were unworthy of him as a man of principle. I am fighting for a principle, and he, too, should be prepared to fight for a principle. The principle is that a man in this country is innocent unless proved otherwise.
Neil Hamilton has not been proved to have taken the money. The Committee concluded that it did not have evidence that he had taken the money. I am therefore not attempting to rake over old coals. However, I shall not join in the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to Sir Gordon Downey. I do not share my right hon. Friend's view. I believe that Sir Gordon has failed to discharge his duty, and I am entitled to say so in the House.
I have publicly expressed that view, and I have told Sir Gordon Downey on the telephone that I wish to call for his dismissal. He has not been shy in replying to me. He is an unelected appointee of the House who should be accountable to the House. I feel that he has not been properly accountable to the House. When challenged about my views, he asserted in The Daily Telegraph that my opinions were a matter of "total indifference" to him. All I can say is that no public official has the right to speak in such terms about the opinions of an elected Member of this place.
Sir Gordon has been quite happy to defend himself. He has made some outrageous remarks. After seeing something about the 19th report in The Times and learning its basis—wishing Sir Gordon well—I have only just picked up a copy of it. However, I shall not join in the general euphoria—forgive me—because I believe that the public are entitled to know about those matters. I am grateful to hon. Members who are giving me a fair hearing.
The essence of my argument—of why I believe that Sir Gordon Downey has failed—is that he has failed to discharge his responsibility to uphold the integrity of the House by requiring those who make baseless allegations to be brought to book. That is where he has failed, and that is why I wish to say to his successor that I hope that she will not make the same mistake.
I believe that Sir Gordon Downey also does not deserve the eulogies of the House because of the way in which he dealt with a case in which I have declared a close interest. I have argued why. I am not simply asserting that Sir Gordon Downey is a bad chap; I am giving chapter

and verse as to why I do not believe that the House should give the bloke a happy send-off. One of my reasons is that he chose to rely on the evidence of people who were totally and completely committed to a known crook and liar, in the words of the Department of Trade and Industry report. He failed to take into account the evidence of Mr. Christoph Betterman, a former vice-chairman of Harrods, who ended up banged up in a gaol in the middle east for nine months in squalid conditions. In evidence to Sir Gordon Downey, he said:
In my bitter personal experience, Mr. Al-Fayed is a compulsive liar who will stop at nothing to achieve his objectives. Any statement of his and of his close employees seeking to corroborate him should be treated with the greatest circumspection.
Let me ask the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who is a member of the Committee, why he did not require Sir Gordon Downey to invite Mr. Betterman to give evidence. Sir Gordon failed in his duty. He invited only those who would support the case for the prosecution, as it were.
We have now seen exhibited to public view the activities of Mr. Al Fayed in raiding the safe deposit box belonging to Tiny Rowland. He has now pulled out of the case, which cost £2.5 million and has now ended. It is further evidence that he and his colleagues have been crooks.
My basic point is that Sir Gordon Downey failed to discharge his responsibility.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman condemns the work of Sir Gordon Downey, but surely he should respect the decision of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to find Mr. Neil Hamilton guilty on seven out of the eight charges brought against him. I believe that the fact that Mr. Hamilton admitted to those seven charges would have resulted in his suspension from the House. Does the hon. Gentleman not respect the decision of the elected Members on the Select Committee?

Mr. Howarth: I am afraid that I do not, because the whole issue has been imbued with enormous partisan advantage, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. The evidence is in paragraph 814 of the report. The Prime Minister himself has been hauled before the Select Committee on three occasions and been accused—and found guilty—of minor transgressions which ought properly to have been recorded; yet Sir Gordon Downey asserts that the fact that Neil Hamilton was found guilty on a number of counts puts him completely beyond the pale. I am sorry, but I cannot find the exact quotation.
Sir Gordon Downey does not deserve the approbation of the House because he was partial. He took a more lenient and favourable towards some Members than towards others.
I am not alone in that view. On 20 October, The Daily Telegraph—a newspaper of repute and undoubted independence of mind, a fearless fighter for worthy causes—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are not here."] No; but they will be watching on the box, and I did not vote to bring television into the House.
On 20 October, The Daily Telegraph said:
Under pressure to show that the new system of parliamentary regulation could handle corruption, Sir Gordon appears to have jumped to conclusions. Had he conducted a thorough investigation,


he would have realised that allegations made by employees under Mr. Fayed's direct control were highly suspect. The reason is obvious. Mr. Fayed carries out dirty tricks campaigns against staff who cross him. In the specific case of Alison Bozek, her claims are categorically denied by former members of Mr. Fayed's operations.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Aldershot gives way, I have something to say. The hon. Gentleman has made his point about Sir Gordon Downey and has said that he does not wish to join his hon. Friends in congratulating him. He has a perfect right to do that. He has put the case as to why he should not congratulate Sir Gordon Downey, but the House should not have to listen to every piece of evidence. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I hope that he will not give us chapter and verse of what Mr. Al Fayed or anyone else has done. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he does not like Sir Gordon Downey.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) consider withdrawing his remarks? He has cast aspersions on certain right hon. and hon. Members by saying that the Select Committee treated some hon. Members more favourably than others. That raises questions about the right hon. and hon. Members on that Committee, and I think that he should withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, but I cannot withdraw what I said, as I believe it to be the case. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for very long. He and I worked together on aerospace matters and I respect him, but I do not believe—

Mr. Hoyle: Name the hon. Members.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman asks me to name the hon. Members involved. I have named the Prime Minister, whom I believe to have been treated more favourably and more leniently. I also believe that the Select Committee treated the Paymaster General more leniently than he warrants. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel very strongly about that.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, let me say to the hon. Member for Aldershot that it is time that he concluded his remarks. The House has heard his case and knows exactly where he is coming from. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is listening, because, if he intends indulging in personal criticism of any right hon. or hon. Member, he must table a motion and put it before the House.

Mr. Howarth: I accept your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mentioned to the Paymaster General—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to mention something to any right hon. or hon. Gentleman. If he is going to make personal criticisms of right hon. or hon. Gentlemen, he must put a motion before the House.

Mr. Howarth: Let me remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that an hon. Member lost his seat because of

false allegations that were made against him. They are serious charges. You invited me not to adduce an extensive range of evidence. I hope that I have introduced to the House sufficient evidence to support my claims. I invite Labour Members to be fair-minded and to imagine how they would feel if they were the victims of persecution.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I remind the House that Mr. Hamilton was the Minister for Corporate Affairs who refused to do A1 Fayed's bidding. It was crystal clear that the man had a motive and that is another reason why I feel Sir Gordon Downey has failed.
The purpose of my raising the issue is not to rake over old coals, but to ensure that the new commissioner, if her appointment is endorsed by the House tonight, is aware that there is not a one-sided view of the issue in the House and that there are serious matters to which she has to turn her mind. In order to uphold the integrity of the House, I invite her to look carefully at the way in which she discharges her responsibility. I have not met the lady and I have no idea about her. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, except those on the House of Commons Commission, I have to rely on their judgment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has had the benefit of considering the candidates. I have not. I have not been able to put my points and encourage the candidates to consider the nature of their responsibilities.

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way one last time, because I know that you want to move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is raking over the coals of the case by attacking Sir Gordon Downey, but the problem about which he is complaining is the office of the independent commissioner for standards. If we have such an office—and we should—it is bound to work in the way in which Sir Gordon Downey worked.
The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to what would have happened with such accusations before we had the independent commissioner. The issue would have been dealt with entirely by a Committee of the House. There would have been accusations of chaps judging chaps and there would have been little faith outside in any verdict, for or against Neil Hamilton, because people would have said that we were being judge and jury in our own case. The issue would have been worse and more muddied. Why does the hon. Gentleman not compare what happened with what would have happened before?

Mr. Howarth: I believe that such matters should be dealt with by Members of Parliament. I do not believe that we should appoint outside people to judge them. The experience of Sir Gordon Downey proves the point to my satisfaction. I accept that it does not prove it to the satisfaction of other hon. Members. The guy is accountable, for goodness sake. Is he supposed to be


untouchable? Can we not criticise him or say anything about him? Of course we can say something about him. If we appointed him, we can jolly well hold him to account. That is all that I am trying to do.
I do not wish to strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been very gracious towards me, and I appreciate that. I know that you know how I feel about the matter. I have not been raking over the coals. New evidence has appeared in the book by Mr. Tom Bower and in the excellent book called "Trial by Conspiracy" by Jonathan Boyd Hunt, a copy of which I shall let the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) have, for an appropriate fee—he insisted that he wanted to pay for it and did not want it for free. It is subtitled "The Lies, Cover-ups and Injustices Behind the Neil Hamilton Affair".
I shall ensure that Ms Filkin has a copy of the book, because I should like her to read it before she embarks on her job. It sets out what I believe to have been the gravest miscarriage of justice. I accept that it happened to a friend of mine, but I make no apologies for that—why should I? The House should recognise that it has been guilty of not having satisfactorily resolved a matter pertaining to one of its own. This is unfinished business. I hope that the new commissioner will look at the issue again and will take into account the matters that I have tried to put before the House.

Mr. Tony McNulty: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It is appropriate to dwell on the report and some of Sir Gordon Downey's parting shots to mark his retirement. It would have been dreadful, not least because of the entertainment that we have just had, if we had simply nodded the motion through.
I am a relatively new Member of Parliament and I bow to most others in experience, but I am a keen watcher of politics. I note in passing that until the last election, in Mr. Julian Critchley, Aldershot was represented by someone with a good deal more dignity than the current incumbent.
It is right that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was able to have his say in the context of welcoming Ms Filkin and marking the retirement of Sir Gordon Downey, however much others of us may disagree with what he said. The pound sign on the hon. Gentleman's lapel has just been drawn to my attention. I do not know whether it represents a subliminal signal of solidarity with Neil Hamilton, but I shall let that pass.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is about to tell me that the lapel badge is about saving the pound.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman was right the second time—and I think that he knew it at the outset. Of course it is to do with saving the pound.

Mr. McNulty: It may still be subliminal.
If ever there was evidence of the need for Sir Gordon Downey and his good works and the appointment of Elizabeth Filkin, it is what we have just heard. That eloquent, if petulant and ungracious, soliloquy from the

apologia for the Neil Hamilton club shows far more clearly than anything that I could say that Sir Gordon Downey and his successor are sorely needed. To revisit an event at the general election, what we have just heard takes the biscuit in all sorts of ways and is entirely wrong. I wish Ms Filkin good luck. Given what we have just heard, she will need all her experience in looking after errant charges and children. The distortions that we have just heard on the clear evidence against Neil Hamilton that Sir Gordon Downey refers to were a travesty.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has a right to his say. He has united most hon. Members behind a complete exoneration of and welcome for everything that Sir Gordon Downey has done. If Sir Gordon and Ms Filkin needed an enemy in the House, they could find no less a man than the hon. Gentleman.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I know precious little about Ms Elizabeth Filkin. I fully accept what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and other members of the Committee have said about her expertise and experience and I am sure that she is a more than appropriate successor to Sir Gordon Downey, but it might have been useful if we had had a detailed CV, perhaps in the Vote Office, for us to peruse, purely for information.
Sir Gordon Downey rightly did not mention it, but the issue of resources may need to be investigated. Some key points in the report are worth noting, not least the point on page vi about penalties. There is a real concern about the level, extent and manner of penalties imposed. I draw particular attention to the last paragraph of that page, which talks about the present range of penalties. Sir Gordon Downey says that they are adequate and appropriate, but a broader range could be employed by the Committee, beyond public censure, required apology, suspension and expulsion. Sir Gordon says in his retirement note that public opinion may feel that the Committee is a bit soft. We have moved from a zero base with no sanctions all the way to public apologies, public censure, suspension and expulsion, which crudely brings to mind being publicly executed for shoplifting. There must be a range of sanctions and penalties.
Sir Gordon's points about the lack of collective memory are also well made. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee or the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will let me know afterwards whether there is to be serious training and reflection for future members of the Committee. They may need more than just half a morning from time to time.
I am not entirely sure that there should be any limitations, save perhaps for death. Seven years may be enough, except for issues of a particularly serious nature, as Sir Gordon Downey says, but there may be more to it. Seven years may be appropriate, but I am not sure.
It is worth dwelling on the report. The whole House should join the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in wishing Ms Filkin well in her job and the best of luck. Given the drivel that we have heard from the hon. Member for Aldershot, she will clearly need it.

Mr. Martin Bell: It had not been my intention to say anything in this debate, but it is hard to remain silent following the remarks by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who has every right to stand by his friend—and I applaud him for that. One can have


doubts about the way in which the House dealt with my predecessor in matters of the appeal procedure, as I have. None the less, I have been a Member—I became one rather by accident—for a little more than 18 months, and I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks the saddest and most melancholic and graceless that I have heard. To turn against him a word that he used, I would even say that his remarks were disgraceful. They were very sad to listen to.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman found my remarks graceless. If Mr. Neil Hamilton is successful in his libel action against Mohammed Al Fayed, the hon. Gentleman will have fought a baseless campaign.

Mr. Bell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I will be very surprised if the people who made the difference in this matter—the electors of Tatton—are proved wrong.
I turn to the remarks by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), whom I regard as my friend, although I am not of his party or any other. I thoroughly endorse his remarks about Sir Gordon Downey—a remarkable public servant. People in public service who are not elected representatives normally do not expect to be exposed to the vilification to which he has been subjected in the past two years. He has dealt with it with enormous calmness and dignity, and the House and the nation owe him a debt of gratitude. To draw on my previous occupation, Sir Gordon Downey has shown a particular quality which one normally finds only in soldiers in difficult situations: courage under fire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I want to use this opportunity, on behalf of the Leader of the House, who, unfortunately is not able to be present but has sent her apologies, to put on record the Government's support for and tribute to the work of Sir Gordon Downey. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of his record. I pay tribute to him, particularly for the way in which he has performed the duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He has been a most effective first occupant of the post. He has handled the setting up of the new arrangements for standards and privileges with great skill. He also had to handle some very difficult cases at the end of the previous Parliament. He set a high standard of service to the House, and has ensured that the office of parliamentary commissioner is highly respected. In doing so, he has helped to restore the reputation of the House. We wish him well.
We also welcome and support the House of Commons Commission's recommendation on the appointment of Elizabeth Filkin. Her recent role as the adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Department of Social Security Contributions Agency will ensure that she brings to the post a wealth of experience and a reputation for independence and integrity. We wish her well. We know that she will receive the full support of the House in her very important role, and we fully support the recommendation to appoint her.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: There has been a range of contributions to this debate; I shall make a fairly limited speech.
The vast majority of the public do not know who Sir Gordon Downey is. There is no particular reason why they should. Although the post is a public appointment, the office-holder is not constantly on the radio or the television. Sir Gordon was almost invariably asked to discover whether there was evidence behind a complaint, and if there were, to consider the facts and put them to the Standards and Privileges Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is the distinguished Chairman—not just as a result of his background but because he manages to get the Committee's members to agree. I endorse what he said in private that, if the Committee agrees unanimously, it carries far more weight.
One case fell out of the ordinary—the one considered in the eighth report. Paragraph 10 spells out clearly that the Speaker asked for something to happen that did not follow the usual way forward. Although I do not want to go further into events that may be considered in other places, it is worth noting that those who read the eighth report carefully will have an understanding of what happened and of the responsibilities of the commissioner and the Committee. In the appendix to the 19th report—the commissioner's valedictory report, if I may put it that way—people can see the range of disposals of complaints. Some were upheld, and some were not.
I have known Elizabeth Filkin in the past. She has been well chosen by the Commission. We should thank members of the Commission for their work. The Standards and Privileges Committee has thanked Sir Gordon Downey—not at great length, because the paragraph that thanks him does so properly and well. I hope that, in time, when we consider a successor to Elizabeth Filkin, the Committee will have earned as much respect as the commissioner. I hope that the House will have done so, too.
Anyone who believes that there are hon. Members who behave as badly as those in the past does not understand. According to the Cross-Bencher articles in the decade after the war, Members of Parliament engaged in a range of activities which make even the worst of us look pretty good. I take comfort from the fact that members of the public consider the standards of their own Member of Parliament to be high. Members of Parliament as a whole are considered not to be as good as we might be—although it is worth noting that we are generally considered to be better than Ministers as a whole. That may be the wrong way around; it is just the way that the public see it.
Let us stick to our responsibilities. I join those who congratulate Sir Gordon, who, when the Committee did not accept everything that he proposed, did not object. Let us remember that any recommendations made by the Committee were ours and not the commissioner's. Let us hope that, in future, the partnership between the people, Parliament, the Committee and the commissioner is as good as it has been recently.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to hon. Members for their speeches. The only complaint that I would make about the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is an old friend, is that he chose an inappropriate occasion on which to make them. Of course he is entitled to the views that he expressed; he has expressed them before. On reflection, he may consider that a substantive motion would have been a much better way in which to bring such important matters before the House.
The hon. Member for Aldershot is entitled, too, to his view of Sir Gordon Downey. Speaking on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I certainly disagree with him. We should bear in mind the fact that Sir Gordon Downey took up the post of commissioner in the middle of a Parliament, when the new process was in gestation. It fell to him to adjudicate, in the light of common sense and reason, on many questions of interpretation posed by hon. Members. He discharged his task with great dignity. In co-operation with the Clerk of the Standards and Privileges Committee, he was able to include a corpus of detailed guidance in the code of conduct and the guide to the rules on which the House now relies. More than anything else, that is his legacy. Of course the process will evolve; of course there are lessons to be learned; of course there will be pressures on the individuals whom we appoint commissioners. The role that Sir Gordon established, which set standards for the future, will serve the House well in years to come.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman address the important issue that I raised? If somebody makes false allegations against an hon. or right hon. Member, should that person be brought before the House to apologise and brought to book? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is just a one-way street?

Mr. Kirkwood: Some of the facts and circumstances as related by the hon. Gentleman seem to me to show his misunderstanding of the position, because he is, indirectly or directly, criticising not the parliamentary commissioner, but the Committee itself. He is entitled to do so, but I should have thought that the appropriate way of doing so would be to table a substantive motion, which could then be amended and debated in the House in the proper way. He is investing the post with a degree of authority that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards retiring and the prospective Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards do not have.
Let me direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the annexe to the report that we are debating. The final point in the section detailing the job description states clearly that the principal duties are, inter alia,
Receiving and investigating complaints about the conduct of Members (whether related directly to alleged breaches of the Code or not) and reporting her findings to the Committee.

Surely, that is the point. Any substantive complaints about past events should be directed at members of the Committee. That is right and proper.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has raised an important issue. I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) agrees that it is right to put it on the record that, in any future complaint, the complainant will be expected to carry the burden of providing evidence so that the commissioner will know whether there is something worth investigating. If the commissioner were satisfied that there was prima facie evidence that justified an investigation, I suspect that people who gave false evidence would find themselves in trouble, but those who gave evidence that did not fully substantiate the case would not necessarily face any penalty.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am only a humble member of the House of Commons Commission, but those points cover territory that should be considered by the Committee itself. I am sure that the new commissioner will closely examine our debate, which will be a positive step. I am happy to take back the points raised and ensure that the new commissioner gives them some thought, albeit in conjunction with the Clerks and the members of the Committee, because they are the people who will consider and develop our future procedures.
I can put my hand on my heart and give a cast-iron assurance to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who was, quite rightly, concerned that the Commission should in future take the time to set out more details about a prospective candidate before the report came to the House for a final decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a comprehensive and detailed board was set up in accordance with all the civil service equal opportunities provisions. There were 19 applications, reduced to a shortlist of five, consisting of three men and two women. The process of deliberation was exhaustive and resulted in two excellent final candidates. Others have not had the advantage of being able to cross-examine Elizabeth Filkin, but having had the benefit of doing so, I have no hesitation in saying that she is an appropriate person for the job.
The debate has been useful, albeit slightly tense at times. We on the Commission will certainly reflect on the substantive points raised. I hope that other hon. Members, including those who have spoken, will also reflect. To return to the main business, I urge the House to endorse the recommendation that the report contains.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Ms Elizabeth Filkin be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the retirement of Sir Gordon Downey, KCB, on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission (HC 1143), dated 9th November 1998.

Prisoners (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) (No. 2) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
Under the Good Friday agreement, both Governments promised to put in place an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners. That part of the agreement has caused deep heart searching for many, including those who have to implement it. For many of the victims of horrendous crimes over the years, it has renewed the pains and hurts that they still bear. The Government are working with them to address their needs and we shall continue to look at ways in which we can support and help the all too many victims of the past 30 years and their families.
However, despite the pain and the doubts, the issue of releases was and remains an integral part of the agreement, which was adopted by the participants, endorsed by the people and implemented by this Parliament in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. In the agreement, a clear condition was attached to the release of prisoners in paragraph 2, page 25, which states:
Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements. The situation in this regard will be kept under review.
The Act passed by the House on 28 July reflects that condition in full. It also reflects the four factors that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the course of the referendum campaign, said would be taken into account in reaching an overall judgment on whether an organisation could benefit.
The agreement clearly linked the release of prisoners to the maintenance of a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. It is not for us to overturn the agreement and add new conditions or make new linkages. If we did so, what authority would we have to insist that others should also hold to their commitments without adding new conditions?
The draft order recognises that the Loyalist Volunteer Force has declared a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. The effect of the draft order is that the LVF will be removed from the list of specified organisations. Therefore, individuals affiliated to it will be eligible for the benefit of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. That benefit is the early release of prisoners convicted of scheduled offences committed before 10 April 1998, the date of the Good Friday agreement.
If an organisation is specified, members of that organisation do not qualify for early release. The draft order shows that the organisations that remain specified are the Continuity IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Real IRA. The draft order is the result of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State keeping the security situation and relevant organisations under continual review. That review of our earlier judgment of the organisations to be specified has taken account of the ceasefires called by the LVF, the INLA and, more recently, the Real IRA.

Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain

something that increasingly mystifies and disturbs many people, principally those on the mainland. How is it that the prisoner release process is proceeding apace, when nothing whatsoever appears to have happened regarding decommissioning of arms, explosives and other weapons? Can the Minister explain to frustrated voters on the mainland why that is happening, when earlier so much stress was laid on the fact that the two had to be intimately connected?

Mr. Ingram: Conservative Members could help to spread understanding of the Good Friday agreement. The agreement was not about that linkage, although aspects of the agreement related to decommissioning. I was going to refer to the totality of the agreement later in my speech, and I hope that that will provide an explanation. I call on everyone who has an understanding of the agreement not to create new parameters, or to try to define new dimensions or establish new preconditions; if they do so, they are no longer supporters of the Good Friday agreement, which the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic supported in overwhelming numbers. That is not to say that the issue has not been addressed: it is being addressed. Every Member of Parliament wants full decommissioning to happen.
I was saying that the review of our earlier judgment of the organisations to be specified had to take into account the ceasefires called by the LVF, the INLA and the Real IRA. Although our current conclusion is that no additional organisations should be specified, the situation will remain under review.
Let me deal with the organisations that are now specified in the order. The Continuity IRA has not declared a ceasefire and will, therefore, remain specified. The Real IRA announced a ceasefire on 7 September—a most welcome development. The worth of that ceasefire will have to be proved in word and deed over a longer period. I do not need to remind the House that this was the organisation responsible for the horrific events at Omagh which resulted in 29 deaths and many hundreds of others injured and traumatised. The Government are far from convinced that its ceasefire represents a genuine and lasting commitment to exclusively peaceful means.
The INLA also remains specified, since we are not yet persuaded that its ceasefire is complete and unequivocal. Its ceasefire was called on 22 August and, like the Real IRA, it still needs to demonstrate by word and deed its commitment now and in the future to exclusively peaceful and democratic means to pursue its objectives.
The Government will pursue those responsible for past terrorist crimes, and bring the full weight of the law to bear against those who continue to plan and perpetrate such evil acts.
Let me now refer to the Loyalist Volunteer Force. The Secretary of State is now satisfied that this organisation has established a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, and has done so over a significant period. Since May this year, the LVF has demonstrated that its ceasefire is being maintained. The decision that it should no longer be specified also recognises the significant contacts that the LVF has made, via an intermediary, with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
The decision also takes into account the LVF's public commitment to make a start to decommissioning within a short period of its ceasefire being recognised.


Although other organisations have maintained their ceasefires for longer, no other organisation has committed itself to a start to decommissioning. We welcome the LVF's commitment. We look forward to it being honoured.
All the participants in the negotiations committed themselves to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. Paragraph 3 of page 20 of the Good Friday agreement says:
All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
In common with all commitments in the agreement, we look for tangible evidence that that commitment also is being implemented. The Government are living up to our commitments under the agreement; we expect everyone else to do so as well.
As I have said, all of those issues are kept under continuous review, taking into account all the evidence available on the best security advice, and taking into account all the factors prescribed in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the Good Friday agreement itself. We are working to ensure that, as the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have indicated, there is no future for violence—it must be consigned to the past.
The future is in peace, in following the democratic path and in acknowledging other people's rights as one would expect them to acknowledge one's own. Arguments can and should be settled through discussion, consensus and the rule of law, and not through perpetual distrust and recourse to arbitrary and brutal violence. The Government are committed to seeing this process through, facing up to all the difficulties and, importantly, looking for resolutions to them. The way forward is through the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. The order is part of this process. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: First, I believe that the Secretary of State's timing is about right in reviewing her earlier judgments on specifying—or unspecifying, as the case may be—the various terrorist organisations. I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House with the order. I will not second-guess the security advice that the Secretary of State and the Minister have been given. I trust that advice and, therefore, the Opposition will not oppose—indeed, we will support—the order in any Division tonight.
Having said that, it is worth while reflecting that the Loyalist Volunteer Force has been one of the most evil, sectarian and psychopathic organisations that this country has had the misfortune to experience. Nothing that we do tonight by voting for the order in any way diminishes the evil of what has taken place.
I have noted carefully that, over the past few months since its ceasefire began, the LVF has promised that, once it has been unspecified by the Secretary of State, it will immediately start decommissioning all its illegally held arms and explosives. I hope that the LVF sticks to its

word—it is vital that it does. It will be a useful nudge to those who have been extremely dilatory and have been dragging their feet by not decommissioning in any shape or form, even though they have signed up to the Good Friday agreement.
I wish to take issue, gently, with the Minister, who gave the impression to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that there was no link between decommissioning and the early release of terrorist prisoners. On 20 April in the House, the Secretary of State said:
I am sure that he and his colleagues understand that, according to the nature of the agreement, several things must happen in parallel in order to build confidence. That has always been the situation, whether it be decommissioning, the release of prisoners".—[Official Report, 20 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 484.]
I agreed with the Secretary of State then. I fear that many will feel let down that that has not happened.
On 6 May, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:
Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is important to emphasise that people must sign up to the whole agreement and not to bits and pieces of it. The whole agreement stands as a package, and everyone who says yes to it is saying yes to all the agreement. They cannot say yes to the bits they like and leave aside the bits that they do not like; they must sign up to the agreement in its entirety.
Clearly, the paramilitaries have not done that, as shown by the lack of decommissioning.
Later—again in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—the Prime Minister said:
Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.1]
That has not happened.
During the referendum campaign—when we rightly campaigned for a yes vote in the Province—the Prime Minister, at the Balmoral showgrounds, said on 14 May:
The Agreement is what has to be implemented, in all its parts. In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the Agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account … progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence; full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning to implement the provisions of the Agreement".
Again, the people of Northern Ireland have a right to feel let down, because there has not been that co-operation. Although 204 terrorist prisoners have been released early by the Government, there has been no sign of any decommissioning of illegally held weapons—not one gun, not one ounce of Semtex.

Shona McIsaac: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when the previous Government were in power, early prisoner releases were taking place, yet there were no unequivocal ceasefires?

Mr. MacKay: There was a change in the rules to release prisoners, and the hon. Lady is correct. I am not saying that there should be no release of prisoners. That was in the Good Friday agreement, as the Minister of State has rightly pointed out. The Government have shown their good faith to the paramilitaries by releasing prisoners early. I object to the fact that they have continued to release prisoners–204 terrorist prisoners


have now been released early—even though there has been no sign of decommissioning of illegally held weapons. I have said on a number of occasions that the Prime Minister should have drawn a line in the sand and said that no more terrorist prisoners would be released early until there was substantial and verifiable decommissioning.
Reasonable people on the mainland and in the Province cannot understand why there is continuing early release of terrorist prisoners when there is no sign of decommissioning. As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) might recall, I put that to the Secretary of State at the most recent Northern Ireland Question Time on 28 October. She replied:
I have made clear to the right hon. Gentleman on other occasions the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I shall repeat them. He said that decommissioning is crucial, that it is a central part of the agreement and that we want all dimensions to move in parallel. If there is no progress, we will review it"— [Official Report, 28 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 322.]
Clearly, the dimensions are not moving in parallel. The Good Friday agreement is now seven months old, and if there is no decommissioning, but there are prisoner releases, the dimensions are not running in parallel as the Secretary of State and I rightly believe they should. I therefore suggest that a review of the situation is long overdue. The right hon. Lady willingly admitted to me that it should be reviewed.
I warn the Minister of State, in the gentlest way, that the agreement made in Belfast on Good Friday, which he and I strongly support, will be in jeopardy if there is continuing early terrorist release without substantial and viable decommissioning, not to mention the problems that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the First Minister in the Assembly, has in appointing Ministers to the Executive. The right hon. Gentleman has correctly said that he is not prepared to appoint Sinn Fein Ministers until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning. I hope that the Minister agrees that no politician can hold ministerial office, with all the responsibilities that that entails, while his paramilitary associates retain their guns and explosives.
The House must remember that the IRA and Sinn Fein are one and the same.

Mr. Ingram: indicated assent.

Mr. MacKay: The Minister nods vigorously. I am always pleased to hear the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State say that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked. There is, therefore, absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness were in favour of decommissioning, there would be no problem in achieving it. They have seen a substantial number of their terrorist friends released from prison early without any decommissioning taking place, so they have said, "It does not look as though there is any need for decommissioning. We can have what we want from the bargain. We can cherry-pick and have our prisoners released and retain all our arms and explosives."
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will have to say to all the paramilitaries, whether they are so-called loyalist or republican, "You will not have one more terrorist prisoner released early under the agreement

unless you comply with the rest of the agreement and start substantially to decommission." It is not good enough for Mr. McGuinness to say, as he did in an interview on the same radio station as me last week, "Well, we have two years to do it." Any reasonable person would say that, seven months on, if there is absolutely no sign of decommissioning, that is not satisfactory.
Conservative Members are not saying that every gun and every ounce of Semtex should already have been handed in or handed in before any prisoners were released. We are certainly not saying that any of the terrorist organisations must publicly hand in their weapons. All we want is for decommissioning to be verifiable by the decommissioning commission because we, like the Minister, have full faith in General de Chastelain. The method is secondary to the process taking place.

Mr. Ingram: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the assessment of the Secretary of State and of me that the Provisional IRA is currently engaged in an unequivocal ceasefire? It is, therefore, a beneficiary under the Act and should remain so because that is the basis on which the Act was passed by the House in response to the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. MacKay: An unequivocal ceasefire, as the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box on 6 May in response to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), has to include decommissioning. I warmly welcome, as does the Minister, the fact that there has been a cessation of violence, but it is not an unequivocal cessation. He and I cannot sit comfortably until all the paramilitaries, not just the Provisional IRA, fully comply with the conditions that they signed up to in Belfast on Good Friday, and they are clearly not doing so. Let us be blunt—there is absolutely no decommissioning going on.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We speak of an unequivocal ceasefire, but weapons have been used by terrorists. That is a sham when it is claimed not by the IRA or UVF, but by others. However, is it not more significant that the spokespersons representing the UVF and the IRA, who sit with the general on the decommissioning commission, have said publicly that they will not decommission?

Mr. MacKay: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Minister has said publicly that the remarks of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness that the Provisional IRA will not decommission were deeply regrettable. I hope that they will think again, but I fear that they will do so only if they are told by the Prime Minister that no more of their terrorist friends will be released early from prison.
To take up another point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), although it strays slightly wide of the order, none of us can be comfortable with the punishment beatings and intimidation that continue, and while they continue, there is no complete and unequivocal renunciation of violence. On balance, that is not serious enough for us to respecify organisations, but I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will make it clear that if punishment beatings continue, the organisations proved to be involved


will lose their status under the order. That is a wicked and evil form of violence, which the Minister and I know intimidates some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of the community in the Province.

Mr. Ingram: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my opening remarks, all the elements on which any paramilitary or terrorist organisation is judged are continually kept under review, and we act on the basis of the best security advice available. The Secretary of State has made it clear that she will not hesitate to exercise her judgment correctly and proportionately on any breach of those conditions.

Mr. MacKay: I am, as usual, grateful to the Minister of State. It is important that, when we are debating this sensitive issue in the House, we never let those who are the victims of so-called punishment beatings and intimidation, who are often those in the poorest areas of the Province, feel that they have been forgotten or that they are vaguely expendable in the greater political process in which the Minister and I are engaged. It is vital that the House sends a clear message; I am extremely grateful to the Minister for doing so.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, last month, he and I met representatives of a newly formed group, Families Acting for Innocent Relatives, and does he recall the deep sense of injustice felt by those representatives of the Protestant community of south Armagh in particular, about early release without decommissioning?

Mr. MacKay: I most certainly do remember the occasion. I have been in correspondence since, and I am due to meet representatives of Families Acting for Innocent Relatives. The families concerned, especially those that live in and near south Armagh, have a genuine grievance. Substantial terrorist activity is continuing. Innocent people on both sides of the sectarian divide are being intimidated, and are very scared. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that and that, like me, he would like that to be stopped as soon as possible. I hope quite soon to visit south Armagh to see for myself at first hand what that organisation of very brave people has to show me. I very much concur with my hon. Friend.
Tonight the House must give the following clear message. Yes, we pass the order unspecifying the LVF, but we insist that the LVF decommissions as it promised and declare that, if it does not do so, the matter will be reviewed again; moreover, we shall stop releasing terrorist prisoners early until we have substantial and verifiable decommissioning on behalf of all paramilitaries, whatever side of the sectarian divide they come from.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) knows that I share his profound revulsion at the murderous psychotic members of the LVF, and others like them. I am sure that all hon. Members share that revulsion. I have said often enough in this place that we live in a mature parliamentary democracy, and that the activities of such psychotic people are those of the mobster—of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Bracknell acts in good faith when he offers legitimate criticisms of the utter lack of progress on the almost insoluble issue of decommissioning. However, 1 believe that the Minister has acted with good sense and courage in relation to the order—it is a curious way of putting it—in unspecifying those psychotic people. I sometimes wish that we could unspecify them out of our hair, but that may be too much to hope.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) know that I have often said—as did the right hon. Member for Bracknell earlier—that I detest the dreadful punishment beatings. They are the acts of gangsters, some of whom claim—absurdly and obscenely—to be engaged in a military campaign, either defending the Union or seeking its partial destruction where the north of Ireland is concerned.
I agree that the decommissioning issue was always going to be the most difficult problem to tackle in relation to north-south relations, east-west relations and other developments. I do not have the answers. I believe that, in the fulness of time, decommissioning will take place—that it will be brought about by the efforts of the Government and of all those actively involved in politics in Northern Ireland. General de Chastelain has an important role to play. His patient, painstaking work and that of his colleagues will help enormously in this matter, but I believe that it will be a slow process.
Like the right hon. Member for Bracknell, I should love to see what he called substantial and verifiable demonstrations of decommissioning. Yes, we all desire to see such gestures by those psychotic people. I should also like those members of the American Congress—some of whom I met in Washington—who appear to be fully paid-up members of Sinn Fein-IRA, to urge their friends, or "comrades", in Northern Ireland to act more constructively. I wish that, now that the peace process is in operation and the House is legislating for radical constitutional change in the United Kingdom, they would play a more constructive part vis-a-vis their friends in the north.
I believe that progress in decommissioning will be brought about to a large extent by what I have called the patient or painstaking work of General de Chastelain and his colleagues and others, but it will be a hard road to follow. Sinn Fein-IRA could do much more to help things along. Recently, we have heard some very disingenuous—to put it mildly—statements by Sinn Fein representatives. For the people of Northern Ireland—the men, women and children represented by the two Northern Ireland Members present, the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—let us have a substantial and verifiable form of decommissioning. However, as I said to the Minister, it was right and proper to bring the order to the House.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The issue of prisoner release is creating immense difficulties for those who are set the task of putting in place a devolved structure in Northern Ireland that can meet the expectations of society as a whole.
I agree with all that has been said about the LVF to the effect that its members are ruthless killers. Those are sectarian killers. They are not people for whom I or any of my colleagues have the slightest sympathy.


I shall raise one small issue with the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who has said that those in the LVF are the most ruthless and sectarian killers. For someone who has lived in Northern Ireland for the past almost 30 years of violence, there is no such thing as the most ruthless. Each terrorist organisation—

Mr. MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: I shall not give way at this stage. I may be nit-picking—

Mr. MacKay: I said "some of the most ruthless" killers.

Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me, at his expense, to make my point.
Each and every terrorist organisation—whether it be a terrorist organisation that has a political wing, that political wing having been involved in a talks process, or whether it be a terrorist organisation that is without a political wing—has displayed the utmost ruthlessness at some time during the past 28 years. One must look at what is being achieved by accepting the declaration of the LVF—an organisation with no political wing. The LVF obviously feels that it will not be taken seriously unless it makes an offer to Government—remember that self-interest is involved—regarding the release of prisoners. To secure their release, the organisation is prepared not only to declare an end to violence but to surrender its guns, disarm or decommission—whatever euphemism is most acceptable to it.
That creates a difference between the LVF and other organisations such as the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Those organisations have politically linked parties. There is much real linkage between the politicians—the Adamses and the McGuinnesses—and organisations such as the IRA. Others in other political parties are linked in the same way. One must now ask whether we have made good progress and whether the Government are as assiduous in seeking to make progress at this stage as they were in March and April this year. I believe that both our Government and the Irish Government are failing to show the enthusiasm for implementing the agreement that they demonstrated in achieving the agreement in March and April. That is a fundamental mistake.
We must remember that the LVF did not accept that agreement; it rejected it. That is why the organisation continued its violence after agreement was reached. We must not forget that fact because it may have repercussions: members of that organisation may be imprisoned for long periods as a result. We must wonder at what stage, having achieved its objective of getting prisoners released in return for decommissioning, we shall see the LVF resume violence—they are ruthless people—under that or some other convenient name, as part of a campaign to have others released.
The Minister shakes his head. I have been around for too long to trust any terrorist. I know how terrorists on both sides are willing to exploit what they perceive as weakness on the part of the Government—and that weakness has been displayed by both parties in government during my time in the House.
When taking stock, one must get over the notion that, because the LVF does not have a politically linked group, it is somehow worse than the UDA or the IRA. As the IRA, through Sinn Fein, is likely to be involved in the Executive—although certainly not immediately because it has not qualified—we should remember what Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, in particular, stand for. Let me remind the House who Gerry Adams is. He is the person who, in 1983, said:
The IRA does not need an electoral mandate for armed struggle. It derives its mandate from the presence of the British in the six counties.
In 1986, he said:
For our part, this leadership has been active in the longest phase of resistance to the British presence. Our record speaks for itself … The tactic of armed struggle is of primary importance.
So we move down the years. In 1988, Gerry Adams said:
Armed struggle is seen as a political option. Its use is considered in terms of achieving national political aims and the efficacy of other forms of struggle.
We move on to 1989. Gerry Adams complained:
The British government rarely listens to the force of argument. It understands only the argument of force … Armed struggle, however, is not merely a defensive reaction by an oppressed people. It sets the political agenda. Thus armed struggle can advance the overall struggle to the advantage of those in whose interests it is waged … armed struggle is a necessary and morally correct form of resistance in the six counties.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: I shall give way when I have completed these quotations. It is important to recognise that the thinking of IRA-Sinn Fein and its leader, Gerry Adams, has not changed down the years. In 1990, he said:
We believe that Irish people have the right to use armed struggle in the context of seeking Irish independence and in the conditions of British occupation of the six counties.
In 1994, he said:
The causes of conflict are still on-going".
That was at a time when he was considering calling a ceasefire. Therefore, we must put that ceasefire in context—if we need to do so after Canary Wharf. He continued:
Every so often there will be a spectacular to remind the world.
Gerry Adams summed up his attitude to violence by saying:
The tactic of armed struggle is of primary importance because it provides a vital cutting edge. Without it the issue of Ireland would not even have become an issue. So, in effect the armed struggle becomes armed propaganda.
We must look carefully at an organisation linked to a paramilitary force that has never repudiated or retracted that philosophy. When the Secretary of State said last week in her speech to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies that the IRA had said that it had accepted a partitionist solution, she was indulging in a flight of fancy. The IRA—and hence its paramilitary linked party, Sinn Fein—has never accepted any such thing.

Mr. Winnick: As the hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Adams, perhaps he would be interested to know that, in September 1983, at a meeting with Mr. Adams, I asked


him what mandate he had from the Irish people as a whole for the terrorism of the IRA. I also said that no British Government would ever surrender to the IRA against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, and I was not proved wrong. The peace process demonstrates that terrorism will not bring about the kind of unitary state that Mr. Adams wants. It can be brought about only when the majority of people in Northern Ireland say that that is what they want.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is helpful and bears out much of what I believe. I am trying to impress on the House the fact that we are going through a process in which, whatever we achieve—I supported what was achieved on 10 April—cannot be implemented by only one party to the agreement, while the other party procrastinates.
I illustrate that by pointing out to right hon. and hon. Members that the issue of prisoner releases had to be addressed over a two-year period. No start date was specified for prisoner releases, yet the Government moved ahead at the earliest opportunity, and within five months of beginning, have released more than half the prisoners who may be eligible.
If that is the way in which the Government are prepared to implement the agreement, with all the risks attached, it cannot be improper for those of us who want disarmament and verification of that process to say, "No, there never was a specified starting date for disarmament, but in the agreement it was predicated on the same basis as prisoner releases." It had to be completed within two years of the date of the referendum, and it could not possibly happen in the last week, as Martin McGuinness suggests. It must be an on-going process.
Reassurance and confidence building are a two-way street. Many of us have accepted the advice of people such as Michael von Tangen Page of the department of peace studies at the university of Bradford, who pointed out that, in most civil conflicts, it is usually necessary to release prisoners in order to bring about a clean cut-off from terrorism as one moves towards democracy. That is what I read into what Michael von Tangen Page has written, which is cited in a research paper produced by the Library.
If I accept that, I must look to see whether there has been a clean cut-off between the violence and the new democratic process. That is what I voted for on 22 May and again on 25 June. I believe that it is what most of the 70-plus per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted for on those occasions. If Government—perhaps I should say if the parties to the agreement—do not meet their obligations in that respect, confidence will be undermined and it will become virtually impossible to make the political process work as we had hoped that it would.
My party leader asked the Prime Minister on 13 May whether he would
make clear that those obligations"—
the obligations to disarm and so on—
which are clearly set out in the agreement, will be made effective and reflected in forthcoming legislation?
The Prime Minister replied:
Yes—I intend to make it clear that the commitment and the obligations in the agreement must all be fulfilled and that no one can choose to fulfil some parts of the agreement and not others." —[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 365.]

We must build confidence at each and every opportunity that presents itself. That is why I welcome the decision to test the LVF, but I do not want that organisation tested softly. I want it tested in the most stringent manner.
Since 10 April, there have been two sides to the situation in Northern Ireland—not Protestant and Roman Catholic, and not nationalist and Unionist. The two sides now are the terrorists who have yet to cross the psychological hurdle of abandoning terrorism, with all that that implies, and the law-abiding citizenry of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. The Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister must begin to reassure us that their enthusiasm for implementation, their attention to detail and their expectation in respect of all parties are as strong as was their desire for an agreement in the first place.
There are various indicators of the progress that has been made. Particularly in respect of Sinn Fein-IRA, which will be in the Executive of a devolved Government if it meets the criteria laid down, there are a number of indicators that must be examined carefully at this stage. We must ask ourselves why the entire energies of Sinn Fein-IRA are now directed exclusively against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in every respect possible, down to intimidating a football team in West Belfast into refusing to take part in a football competition because the RUC was the team that it drew in the competition.
I have listened to members of the Roman Catholic tradition in Northern Ireland-people for whom I have the highest respect, such as Monsignor Denis Faul. I have heard them tell what it is really like, from the Catholic side of the community, to have to face up to the IRA's intimidation. I also hear exactly the same thing from people within my own tradition in respect of the UVF and the UDA. 1 always feel obliged to say that all organisations that indulge in terror are equally obnoxious to me.
The Government of the Irish Republic have been found wanting. I am particularly disappointed that Bertie Ahern, who I believed had the courage to move things forward, has been equivocal about those who sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
When it was announced that the LVF was to be brought aboard the scheme for prisoner releases because of its ceasefire and willingness to disarm, Bertie Ahern had no need to say, "But this does not mean anything as far as the IRA is concerned." How does Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, know that, unless that is the message that he has been getting? If that is the message that he has been getting from the IRA, he should be sharing that message with our Secretary of State and with our Prime Minister, and they should act immediately to bring an end to prisoner releases and the process that was intended to allow us all to move into a devolved democratic mode in Northern Ireland.
Those are the questions that I must ask. I do not have an answer to all the questions. When I put my hand up for the agreement on 10 April, I never believed that everything would be easy; that it would not take time; that there would not be fears and suspicions; that there would not be delaying processes—

Dr. Godman: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman closely. He may criticise the lack of enthusiasm shown by


Ministers here and by the Taoiseach and his Ministers, but he cannot deny that they are all utterly committed to progress in these matters. Surely commitment as well as enthusiasm is important.

Mr. Maginnis: Commitment is a wonderful thing, but in this case the energy to realise one's ambitions is more wonderful still.
The two Governments have the power and authority to insist—it is not within the power of my party to insist—that all meet their obligations as we advance what is now called the peace process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has done everything in his power. He has been assiduous in putting into place every measure that can encourage even those who have been our enemies for the past 28 years.
I leave the House with this thought, which may help it to understand. Sinn Fein-IRA, through Adams and McGuinness, used to clamour to speak to a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. That happened. Then they clamoured to speak to a member of the Cabinet—the Secretary of State. That happened. Then they clamoured to speak to the Prime Minister, and the day they walked out of No. 10 Downing street for the first time, they did not tell us what progress they were going to make. They did not tell us how they would remove the threat that they pose to society in Northern Ireland, and they did not even tell us what they had said to the Prime Minister. They said that they had to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann. Hon. Members will remember that my right hon. Friend was persuaded, from both sides of the House, that he should concede that particular point, and he has done so. Again, he has seen no reward for his industry.
It is time for stocktaking. This is the first opportunity that we have had to consider the prisoner issue and other issues relevant to progress in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will give us some small suggestion of the time scale within which he hopes to stocktake in public and tell us where the Government are going in relation to the problems that we face.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: In our judgment, the order is good news because it suggests that the process is working. If the Secretary of State has the evidence to make her confident that the Loyalist Volunteer Force should be removed from the specified list, that suggests that other organisations are leaving the path of violence and accepting that there is a more attractive, peaceful alternative.
As for the related issues that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), it is clear that there is a relationship between prisoner release, decommissioning, specified organisations and the peace process. As the Minister has said, however, and it needs to be emphasised repeatedly, we cannot renegotiate the Good Friday agreement and, as a result, there are clear consequences for prisoner release in respect of that text, which must be honoured. I do not imagine that any hon. Member is suggesting otherwise. The issues relating to the Good Friday agreement are now accepted, implicitly at

least, but the relationships between decommissioning and removing specified organisations from the list, and the prisoner releases that that entails, seem to be the biggest sticking point.
We must recognise the importance of flexibility in the process. If there had not been flexibility in the debate before the Good Friday agreement and thereafter, we would not be making such progress. One of the biggest difficulties in Northern Irish politics was the unwillingness of anyone to move an inch from often dogmatic positions, but we find ourselves in a much more fluid environment. It is a testimony to all sides in Northern Irish politics that the sometimes risky moves that have been made have led to the breakthroughs which appear to be consolidating the peace as it stands.
To that extent, notwithstanding the examples cited by the right hon. Member for Bracknell from the Prime Minister's quotations, we must recognise that flexibility remains a key consideration—a key concern—as we attempt to find a way forward on the sticking point of decommissioning.
Decommissioning will be a problem, although some people regard it as a merely symbolic issue. I regard it as more than that, and other hon. Members have said the same, but it is appropriate for us to keep our eye on the ball and on the big picture—the elimination of violence in Northern Ireland and its replacement with a peaceful alternative. To that extent, the flexibility that Ministers, as well as Northern Ireland politicians, have shown has led to a direct reward in terms of the progress that we have made.
What is more, apparently intransigent comments on both sides have sometimes led to surprising breakthroughs. Forty-eight hours before the Good Friday agreement was settled, one hon. Member said that the chance of a successful outcome was less than 5 per cent. I understand why he said that, but let us not fool ourselves: it is sometimes expedient for individuals to make strong statements in defence of their position, which could shift. On that occasion, it did so radically. I was so surprised by the odds and the result that I seriously thought about doing the lottery.
If we are realistic and honest with ourselves, similar breakthroughs could occur in respect of those who resist decommissioning. It has been a testimony to Northern Irish politicians that they have often not accepted that failure is an option in this process. The public in Northern Ireland have been clear that they want lasting peace. There have been acts of faith all down the line. The religious interpretation of an act of faith is believing in something that one cannot see. Perhaps nothing short of a political miracle is required before we can make progress on decommissioning, but breakthroughs have been made repeatedly in the past few years, beginning with the previous Administration's courageous efforts to kick the process off and continuing with the current Government's efforts and successes. Therefore I do not entirely share the concerns of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am an optimist, based on the evidence so far.
A subject that has already been mentioned is punishment beatings. Although bombings and shootings seem to have declined massively as reported in the traditional sense on the "Nine O'clock News", and, in the case of many organisations, disappeared altogether, punishment beatings remain at a high level. Evidence


suggests that the occurrence of punishment beatings far exceeds the official police record. One need not be a genius to understand why many are not reported. The victims suffer appallingly and some have their lives threatened. Will the Minister assure the House and the public at large that the Government do not find the current level of punishment beatings in the Province acceptable? Will the Government tackle the problem directly with those who may have an influence, and indirectly through the security forces, as a short-term concern that must be headed off?
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone showed great insight into the relationship between the LVF and political bodies. To the best of my understanding, the LVF has no clear connection with a particular political group in Northern Ireland. He is right to point out that other dangers lie ahead. Some individuals who are intent on pursuing a course of violence may be tempted back to that bankrupt philosophy. I hope that the security forces and the Government will watch for the danger signs, because violence is bound to corrupt the peace process and we want no backward steps.
The order represents progress and I am pleased to support it. It is a credit to the generally sensible speeches that we hear in the House and a testament to the people and politicians in Northern Ireland who have shown great courage in exploring, in a flexible way, new processes to achieve the result that we all want. The current circumstances show great promise. We have heard about the issues, but so long as we build up a momentum behind the peace process and keep making it clear that results are being achieved in a practical way, our discussions may be instrumental in achieving the necessary breakthroughs in decommissioning and punishment beatings, so that we may make peace a lasting and consolidated outcome. At the moment, the process promises to deliver an awful lot more than many of us imagined possible.

Mr. Ingram: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not intend to go over all the points, because I dealt with many of the issues raised in the debate in my opening remarks. I pay tribute to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, because they have raised important issues. Everyone welcomed the order, although such a welcome was not forthcoming when the first order was placed before the House.
I shall deal with two key points that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made. He said that there was no obligation on the Government to deal with prisoner releases within a time frame. I shall quote to him from the Good Friday agreement. On page 25, paragraph 3 of the section on prisoners says:
Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed time frame and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners. The review process would provide for the advance of the release dates of qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. In addition. the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point.
Importantly, paragraph 4 says:
The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998.

We were not able to do that, but we completed the legislation, which was endorsed by the House, in July 1998. I want to make it clear that the Government will continue to honour all their commitments under the Good Friday agreement. We expect every other party to that agreement to do the same.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone warned that the Government and Ministers responsible for such matters should be wary of the LVF returning to its violent ways after it has achieved the release of its prisoners, under its own name, by redefining itself under another name or by using a proxy organisation. I again want to make it clear that, if any organisation returns to violence and is in breach of its ceasefire, it should understand that its prisoners will have been released on licence, and released prisoners will be recalled to prison if they either give support to an organisation that re-engages in terrorist activities or re-engage in such activities themselves.
That was made abundantly clear when the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 was being passed. Prisoners of a despecified organisation who have been or are likely to be released in the future are on licence, and the position will constantly be reviewed. Their organisations and any acts that they may carry out in support of those organisations will be monitored.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but that is such a conditional assurance as to be meaningless. We have already pointed out that, once prisoners are released, the onus is on the Government to prove not that the organisation has changed its name and is active again, but that released prisoners are acting in support of that organisation, which means that everything has to start from the beginning.
The Minister knows that records are being pushed to one side and destroyed. People may have been out of prison for some time, so it will be virtually impossible for any effective action to be taken—in a normal society that may be acceptable. The Minister should recognise that this is a useless measure, because that would make him and those responsible more alert to what they are doing as prisoners are released.

Mr. Ingram: I do not want to open up a debate on this matter. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take the assurances that I am giving him from the Dispatch Box, which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have also given, about the nature of the sentencing legislation. It is specific and has not been put in place merely to be implemented and then forgotten about. We rigorously hold to those conditions. If an organisation returns to its violent ways, any individual who has been released as a member of that organisation and who subsequently participates in support of the organisation or of any organisation that is acting as a proxy for that organisation will be returned to prison. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept assurances that have been given in good faith, and with determination and commitment.
We must hope that all the organisations that we have despecified maintain the ceasefire, and that the organisations that are the subject of the order hear what has been said and understand the message—that the people north and south in the island of Ireland want a peaceful future. They do not act other than for their own


approach; they do not represent any body of opinion. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made that point in his speech. The good people of the island of Ireland—both Northern Ireland and the Republic—made their view clear in the referendum, and I think that more people are signing up to what the future will entail if we can move the process forward.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) raised the issue of what people describe as punishment beatings. As I have said from the Dispatch Box before, the word "punishment" should not be used in this context, because it gives a form of justification to paramilitary assaults performed on people within their own community. The hon. Gentleman asked for a number of assurances in regard to the Government's approach. I have given them before, and I now give them again. We are resolute, and will continue to monitor the position. When we can exert pressure to end such action, we will.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary is active in that regard as well, but we must prove the case, and we must have evidence of where the action is taking place. We cannot act on the basis of what people may be saying to the newspapers, or what some people may believe to be happening; in all instances, the case must be proved before we can act. Nevertheless, the conduct of those who perpetrate such acts against their own people is unacceptable and should cease forthwith, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
We have had a useful discussion. I think that the motion has enabled us to make progress, and I hope that we can build on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) (No. 2) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Stephen Twigg be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Derek Twigg be added. —[Mr. Hanson.]

PETITION

East Kent Health Authority

Mr. Julian Brazier: The petition has been signed by 34,000 people gathered by an organisation called Concern for Hospitals in East Kent, which opposes the rundown of Kent and Canterbury hospital in my constituency. The petition was prompted by outrage about the consultation process organised by East Kent health authority, following which the views of no fewer than 27 organisations were misrepresented in the authority's document. In view of that, the petitioners say that they lack confidence in East Kent health authority to provide appropriate health care for the population of east Kent.
The Petitioners therefore ask that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to take steps to replace the current members of the East Kent Health Authority with people who will truly respect the health needs of the people of East Kent.

I thoroughly endorse every word of that.

To lie upon the Table.

Clothing and Textile Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Mr. Phil Woolas: It is delightful to be able to introduce a debate on the prospects of the clothing and textile industries. The debate refers to the carpet and footwear industries as well, because a newly re-established all-party group is attempting to reach across the spectrum of the sector, and those industries constitute an important part of our work. Indeed, my work as chairman of the new group has been rewarding, although it has coincided with a huge fall in the number of jobs in the industry; I hope that it is a coincidence and not cause and effect. The group is working hard on behalf of the sector. I should like to place on record my thanks to all the members of the group who have taken part.
One of our main achievements has been to establish an industry advisory group, which brings together industrialists, academics, employers and trade unions from throughout the sector. It is to that body that we turn for advice, on which some of my remarks will be based.
Another implication of the establishment of that group is that I am forced, although it is a pleasant duty, to wear British-made clothing on every public occasion. My suit and tie were made in the United Kingdom. Indeed, everything that I wear that you cannot see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was also made in the UK. After close conversations this evening, I am delighted to be able to report that the Minister is also wearing a British-made suit.
The advisory group to the all-party parliamentary group estimates that, this year, some 25,000 jobs have been lost in the industry. In the trade-unionised sector alone, job losses have been running at about 500 a month. I give just one example of how important the industry is in one region. In the east midlands, the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Clothing and Textiles Association reports that 3,000 jobs will be lost this year; that represents some 6 per cent. of the sector in the region.
I do not want to be a merchant of doom—far from it; we must not, whatever we do, talk down the industry. Nor is it responsible to talk down the manufacturing sector as a whole. However—it is a big however—there is no doubt that the industry is in what the Governor of the Bank of England has described as an exposed sector of the economy.
The industry is important to many communities, to seven regions and, of course, to the national economy. According to House of Commons statistics, based on the industrial classification statistics that are available, the industry directly employs some 359,000 people. That makes it larger than the farming industry, car industry and chemical industry, to name just three. In answer to a question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
The textiles industry is one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the United Kingdom, with sales of more than £17 billion." —[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 369.]
The total value of exports last year was £8 billion.
This debate is not, however, about macro-economic policy. Sustained, stable growth within the context of low inflation is what our industry needs. Having said that,

there is no doubt that the value of sterling recently has caused problems. Nor, however, must we over-egg the pudding. Sometimes, the value of sterling has been used by industrialists as an excuse to bring forward a process that was happening anyway. However, I cite the case of Saddleworth woollen mill in my constituency, which closes tragically this Friday after 150 years in the woollen business—woollen spinning on the site can be traced back 1,000 years—with the loss of a further 110 jobs. There is no doubt that it was the value of the pound, particularly in the second half of last year, that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Overall, the value of exports in the first half of this year has fallen by 20 per cent. That coincided with a number of events throughout the world: the collapse of the far east, or certainly the significant fall of the far east market, and the near collapse of the Russian market. Interestingly, the mild summer has added to the problems. I know that even the Prime Minister could not solve that one, although I have heard people in my party demanding a solution. Whatever the problems, whether they be short term or outside the influence of Ministers, all of us in the industry know that globalisation has been going on throughout this century.
I do not wish to base my appeal for support of the clothing and textile industry on nostalgia or heritage—although the United Kingdom continues to produce the best cloth and clothing in the world. I could mention Nottingham lace, Savile row suits or even—given my Lancastrian background-Yorkshire wool, but I could not do justice to them. Kidderminster carpets are the best in the world. In my own region, king cotton is, and has been for many years, the market leader. The clothing and textile industries in Northern Ireland and Scotland produce some of the world's finest products. If I have omitted to mention the constituencies of any colleagues, it is not to be rude, but only because the list is very long. As I said, I do not want our appeal to be based on nostalgia; it must be based on the importance of the industry to our economy, and on the industry's many future opportunities.
Globalisation brings new problems. Production in a clothing factory can be switched offshore with one telephone call from a buyer—as many factories across the country have regularly discovered. Despite the appalling exploitation of labour, including child labour, in the developing world, developing areas are developing a very sophisticated clothing and textile sector of their own. Exploitation is still occurring in our country, too, although I hope that that will be dealt with by the minimum wage and other measures. For all those reasons, the industry has to have a strategy, and to work in partnership with the Government on it.
The group and our advisers have identified various elements of a strategy. The first element is that we must work to the action plan that has been drawn up by trade unions and employers as part of the social partnership process, and will be discussed next week with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry. The document will be the manifesto of the lobby of the House that will take place next Wednesday.
We must address the productivity problem. According to the plan, our productivity is 30 per cent. below that of our European competitors—although I should think that many workers in the industry would find that figure hard to believe. I do not accept, as some have said, that the minimum wage and other employment rights, such as


the 48-hour week, will make matters worse. We have to increase standards and quality if the industry is to have a future.
There is absolutely no future in chasing down employment costs. We could never compete with Morocco, for example, where the average hourly rate for clothing worker is 5p an hour. Some hon. Members—I have heard them say it—think that we should compete on such a basis.

Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend mentioned Morocco. The work force of Bairdwear, in my constituency, were told just a few weeks ago of the closure of their plant. Their work is being transferred to Morocco, where slave labour rates operate. Does he agree that a job could be done collectively, perhaps within the European Union, to address such issues?

Mr. Woolas: I very much agree. I have been told of cases in which employees in the industry have been videoed doing their jobs, so that the videos can be sent overseas to teach other people how to do those jobs. I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments.
We need high investment, high-tech solutions and marketing and design inputs. Many of our industrialists are already taking action on those matters, and good luck to them. The footwear industry is a good example of an industry that has turned the corner. It has a social partnership plan, which is working. That industry has gone upmarket and is successfully marketing its goods. We need to address the question of how the Department of Trade and Industry can help our exporters, as there is no doubt that export is our future.

Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the statement made to our advisory group last week by the British Apparel and Textile Confederation that the DTI has agreed to support only 19 exhibitions and seminars overseas, compared with 31 last year? Does he agree that our textile and clothing industry can compete overseas only on the basis of the excellence in design and innovation shown by the best firms in my constituency and his, and that that requires the Government to put every possible effort into promoting that excellence overseas?

Mr. Woolas: Yes. We should be encouraging more rather than fewer overseas trade missions and exhibitions. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
We are telling our manufacturers to move upmarket, to increase design input and to go for niche markets, but those markets can only be global. Therefore, the value of sterling becomes even more important to our international sales force, notwithstanding the cheapening of imports. We must support the work of our sales force.
I do not wish to sound over-critical. I congratulate my right hon. Friends on their superb success in getting rid of the cotton dumping duties in the European Union. Many of my constituents are grateful for that. However, I think it was General Jiap who said that we must fight on all fronts at all times. In a very exposed market,

we need to be reassured that our Ministers are following that philosophy in relation to clothing and textiles, if not in other activities.
We need quickly to establish national training organisations. Training is too fragmented and we are not providing the industry with what it needs. We need to ensure that the assisted area status maps, which are being redrawn, prioritise the clothing and textile industry. The ending of objective 2 regional funding could hit the clothing and textile sector in particular as it is regionally based. I plead with Ministers to prioritise the clothing and textile industry when they draw up submissions on the new European regional funding model.
Retex has been a great success, but we are about to lose it. We must not forget that negotiations on the multi-fibre agreement will soon be on us again. Goodness knows what will happen when MFA protection is removed.
In addition, we need to address the major structural problems that underpin the process. It has nothing to do with the value of sterling—the value against the major currencies that affect the sector is lower than it was two years ago—but relates to the relationship between retailers and manufacturers. Some of the problems are outside the Minister's control, but none of them is outside his influence.
The DTI-funded work of the apparel and textile challenge comes close to achieving the correct solution. We cannot have a retail sector that bullies the manufacturers or a manufacturing sector that is not flexible and responsive to the retail sector, as that will push production overseas. We must address that problem.
Nor can we base our appeal for the future of the sector just on patriotism. If we want consumers to buy British, we must make British best. There is no premium on the label "Made in Britain" in this country, although British goods sold overseas carry a huge premium because of their label. It is ironic that manufacturers label goods for overseas "Made in Britain", but often fail to label goods intended for the domestic market. The Government can give enthusiasm to the process. We need to examine the labelling laws, perhaps to take into account ethical production issues such as child labour. I believe that consumers have a right to know whether production methods are unethical and the country of origin of the goods that they buy. I also believe that the best badge of quality in this sector and many others is the label that says "union made". In the United States, that is the kitemark of quality. If it is good enough for the entrepreneurial United States of America, it is good enough for my constituents.
The industry must shed its rag trade image. We cannot continue to talk the industry down; it is too important. We cannot treat the industry as a Cinderella sector, because it is not. We have the best cloth makers, the best shoe makers, the best carpet weavers and the best designers. This country has a great reputation for quality; we should build on that. I urge Ministers to do all in their power to support the social partners in their endeavours.

Mr. David Lock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on securing this debate on such an important sector of British manufacturing industry. I have the privilege to represent Wyre Forest, which includes


Kidderminster—the home of the British carpet industry. More carpets are made in Kidderminster than in any other part of Britain.
My hon. Friend has referred to the problems of the high pound. I endorse what he has said. They are long-term problems, not short-term ones. The markets that have been lost in Europe were lost long before the Labour Government came to power. With stability in macro-economic policy, those markets are now back within the grasp of the manufacturers that I represent, but there is still a feeling that the high pound is detrimental to our ability to sell to Europe. I hope that, as interest rates come down over the next 12 months, the value of the pound will ease slightly, to the benefit of manufacturers in my constituency.
I thank Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry for their excellent work in preventing a ban on carpets by Russia, which was threatened during the summer and would have removed a substantial market. We were particularly worried in Kidderminster, because the prospect of a large amount of cut-price carpet from Belgium, much of it produced in circumstances that are, at best, very close to breaching EU rules, caused great concern. Despite all the good work of the DTI, other circumstances have caused the Russian market to collapse. We now fear a substantial ingress of carpet from Belgium. I ask Ministers to bear that in mind when considering the sector in the coming months.
My constituency is not in an EU-funded area. Will Ministers bear in mind the detrimental effect that substantial grants to carpet companies in parts of the United Kingdom that are fortunate enough to be in EU assisted areas would have on companies in my constituency, which are in direct competition, when considering applications for grants or support? I am thinking particularly of companies in Ulster, which have received substantial grants in recent years and are now competing directly with Kidderminster.
There are several high spots. I do not want my hon. Friend the Minister to think that the progress made in the carpet industry in Kidderminster has not been noticed or that the achievements should go unrecorded. World-class companies are being built and investment is high. Investment in marketing, technology and computers is impressive. Companies manufacturing carpets in other parts of the world are being taken over and run by British companies in Kidderminster, with the benefit of the manufacturing know-how of the west midlands. That means that, at the moment, jobs in the traditional industry in Kidderminster are reasonably secure. I hope that the industry there will expand, not contract.
I shall conclude by making two points. First, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that those of us who are concerned about the housing market do not view it purely as a construction issue? When people move house, they spend considerable amounts of money on white goods and carpet. A steady housing market—not a boom or a bust—is essential to the health of the domestic carpet industry.
Secondly, will the Minister use his influence, as those of us in the all-party group do, to encourage members of the public to buy British? By buying British, they are not only buying the best but securing and creating jobs in some important areas of the country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on the way in which he has raised this important issue, as I do my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on assisting him. I notice the huge interest among the Opposition parties—Tories, Liberal Democrats and nationalists—in this extraordinarily important debate on manufacturing. It is a disgrace that they cannot even be bothered to turn up for such a debate.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth on reviving the clothing, textile, carpet and footwear industries all-party group, and especially on the formation of the sectoral advisory committee. Such joint approaches are the way forward. We have suffered too often from being unable to tap the enormous potential in our work force in many sectors. My hon. Friend has taken an imaginative approach to moving forward at a difficult time for the industry.
The Government recognise the substantial contribution that the United Kingdom's textile, clothing and footwear industries make to the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth has reminded us, they have a turnover in excess of £17 billion a year and employ about 350,000 people. That is a huge number. We have had many debates on the steel and coal industries, but I cannot remember when we last debated the textile industry—still less the carpet or footwear industries. Yet many are located in some of the most vulnerable industrial areas, very often on the edge of rural parts, where the alternatives to such employment are very few and far between. This debate is very timely, and I wish that many more hon. Members were present to take part in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth mentioned exchange rates as a factor in closures. As he said, the exchange rate is now broadly the same as it was when the Government came to power. The important difference, as I am sure he will tell his constituents and those in the industry who are trying to do something about the situation, is that inflation is firmly under control. In addition, long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years. That makes a difference; it makes the industry less vulnerable, and poses new challenges. Although growth is expected to be slow, no one is forecasting a re-run of the early 1990s, when, under the previous Government, manufacturing output fell by 7 per cent. and 1 million jobs were lost as the economy suffered its longest recession since the second world war.
I turn for a moment to the support that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry is giving to the effort that everybody is making to try to drive up productivity.
A stable macro-economic environment is an important external factor that provides the opportunity for the industry to flourish, but it is not enough. Our industries have to be globally competitive as well, and the Government have a role to play in that respect. My hon. Friend reminded us of studies that show that parts of our textile sector are 30 per cent. less competitive than those of our main European competitors. There are all sorts of variables in that equation, but I am absolutely convinced that one in particular is the key—investment.


I have no doubt that, if firms here had invested in the way that Italian and American firms have invested over the years, we would not be facing the current situation—my hon. Friend reminded us not to talk down the industry by referring to a crisis. There are some superbly efficient firms in operation, but the difficulties would have been far less had there been proper levels of investment. It is all part of the British malaise—refusing to invest and assuming that firms can stagger along by paying lower wages, without realising that technology is advancing around them.
My hon. Friends mentioned the problem of technology transfer to places such as Morocco, and it is true that technology transfer has never been easier than it is now. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth mentioned videos that show workers in Morocco how the job is done. Such technology transfers will not stop and no rules will be introduced to prohibit them. The economies of the world are opening up and captive markets are becoming fewer. We have to try to understand how we can compete in the new world.
The way to compete is to ensure that we add real value to the carpets we create. We have some of the best art colleges and fashion houses in the world, and fashion and design are crucial to the textile sector. I want a rocket to be put up many of our universities and institutions of higher and further education, so that they start to talk to industry and embark on joint projects with sectors such as textiles. That will encourage everyone to become involved in a crusade to exploit the marvellous design capabilities that this country has. The Government, through the Departments for Trade and Industry and for Education and Employment, have a role to play in encouraging such a partnership approach.

Mr. Lock: Does the Minister recognise that, in some parts of the country, local further education colleges are more innovative and imaginative than their traditional university counterparts? I am thinking particularly of Kidderminster college in my constituency, which runs an impressive textiles degree and works closely with industry. It is now finding that students from across the world, especially the far east, are coming to Kidderminster to study carpets and carpet design, because of the expertise that is found nowhere else in Britain.

Dr. Howells: Kidderminster has a great reputation and long may it flourish. I was an art student in the 1960s, although I must admit that I was far more interested in revolution than in art. I remember giving up painting on 28 May 1968, because it was bourgeois individualism. My mother called me mad, and she was dead right.
We are only just beginning to understand what value our universities and colleges can add. My hon. Friend is right to say that further education colleges often outstrip our best universities, which have a stultified view of the relationship between academia and industry.

Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend invite another partner into that esquation—the major high street chains? They are the buyers of the products and the cause of some of the closures, such as that of Bairdwear in my constituency.
After all, unless they become involved in the debate, those of their customers who currently work in industry will not be able to afford to buy their products in future.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes a good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth is looking carefully at ways of bringing major buyers of textiles, footwear and carpets into the debate so that they understand that their symbiotic relationship cannot be allowed to wither on the vine. The best buyers are interested in talking about that relationship.
Buyers should want to buy from nearby producers, and their relationship is so important. Why must products be produced in Morocco or China? It is logical for products to be produced on demand, quickly and to meet changing market demands as closely as possible to the markets. We should start celebrating that fact and find out how to achieve it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I realise that most of the Minister's hon. Friends are sitting below the Gangway, but I am here and it is to the Chair that he should address his remarks.

Dr. Howells: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is late and I have clearly forgotten that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley referred to the tangible ways in which we can help the industry. I wish to refer to the support for the exhibitions and seminars abroad scheme. I am delighted that we have received a record 1,000-plus bids for support under the new scheme. I take that to indicate broad satisfaction with the new arrangements. We have included about 40 per cent. of the bids in the programme for 1999–2000. With 45 of the clothing sector bids included—some 62 per cent. —the industry has, in fact, done much better than the average.
Organisations bidding for support have told us that they expect to take well over 900 supported clothing firms to the 45 events. Despite the slightly smaller programme, that is well above the 770 firms expected to be supported in 1998–99. My statistics and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley diverge, and I shall check to ensure that we arrive somewhere near the truth as quickly as I can.
The DTI is not only helping companies to identify and exploit market opportunities overseas, but at home. The Department provides support to the apparel and textiles challenge, which is dedicated to the improvement of the textiles and clothing supply chain. The challenge organises meet-the-buyer forums around the country, which provide the opportunity to bring textiles and clothing manufacturers together with potential customers. Six events have been held so far this year, with each event generating, on average, £500,000 of new business for the participants.
More generally, we understand that the UK high street is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) pointed out—a very demanding market, and that retailers here have very high expectations of their suppliers. Through the apparel and textiles challenge, we want to encourage a dialogue between UK suppliers and retailers that will help each of them to understand more thoroughly the other's needs.


My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth and his delegation will discuss these matters with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry next week, and they will explore the ways in which the industry can be helped. The days are long gone when we could bail out firms that were failing—nor would we want to. The textile, carpet and footwear industries have the experience and the wherewithal to compete with anyone in the world. It is a question of having the confidence and the will to invest in those sectors, and not to be frightened by those who would preach a gloomy message—that the whole of world production will move to China or another part of the world where poverty wages are paid. I do not believe that that is the case.

Mr. David Drew: It may interest hon. Members to know that the Stroud valleys were built on

the textile industry. The Government could provide help by encouraging organisations such as business links and development agencies to give training the emphasis that it deserves. I am sure that that would be very helpful to industries such as textiles.

Dr. Howells: That is an important point, and a good one on which to end. If we have the confidence to invest in new machinery, new technology and new techniques in training an already excellent work force to learn new skills, we will be able to compete with anyone in the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.